Re: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll forI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions

"QIU Ying" <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg> Mon, 16 March 2009 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg>
X-Original-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7C128C12D for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.745
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.745 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S7vJTD-nrBDE for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw1.scei.a-star.edu.sg (gw1.scei.a-star.edu.sg [192.122.140.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4363A6407 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailfe01.teak.local.net (mailfe01.teak.local.net [192.122.134.9]) by gw1.scei.a-star.edu.sg (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n2GAoS5H027433; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:50:31 +0800
Received: from t3400 ([10.217.141.175]) by mailfe01.teak.local.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:51:34 +0800
Message-ID: <1B28D7280C5949B093FD86BC71D8D61D@t3400>
From: "QIU Ying" <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg>
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. \(GRC-RCN0\)[Verizon]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>, <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>, <irsg@ISI.EDU>
References: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A266606FBB312@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com><FAAB54171A6C764E969E6B4CB3C2ADD206E4878DC9@NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB220C9F0127@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:50:34 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2009 10:51:34.0748 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C81E1C0:01C9A625]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.7400:2.4.4, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2009-03-16_02:2009-03-13, 2009-03-16, 2009-03-16 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0811170000 definitions=main-0903160038
Cc: mobopts@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll forI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/mobopts>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:49:52 -0000

Hi, Wesley

Thanks for your review and support. My response inline

> You can record a vote for "ready to publish" from me.
>
> The document is well laid out and the relationships between it
> and the many pieces of existing work are well described within
> the document.
>
> One substance nit is that the requirements listed in section
> 3 lack any associated "rationale" statements.  Including some
> rationale alongside each requirement is general practice in
> formal requirements management.

Do you mean we should brief the home/correspondent binding update and 
the RR procedure? OK, we will add it.

> Another nit is that the document generally phrases the
> problem as being to hide the mapping between "the home
> address and the care-of address".  I believe it should
> really be between "the home address and an in-use
> care-of address", in order to ease later understanding
> of the applicability to monami6, dsmip, or other
> extensions that the conclusions say may be in-scope in
> the future for clarification.

OK. Thanks for your observation.

Regards and Thanks
Qiu Ying


>
> The problem of location privacy is very complex, and the
> document does a good job of tracking each concern and
> clearly explaining what appears in each relevant header
> and option field in the stack so that the impact can be
> readily assessed.  I appreciated this.
>
> There are some editorial nits, but I believe they're minor
> enough that the RFC Editor will fix them.
>
> ---------------------------
> Wes Eddy
> Network & Systems Architect
> Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
> Office: (216) 433-6682
> ---------------------------
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
>>[mailto:mobopts-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
>>Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:41 PM
>>To: irsg@ISI.EDU
>>Cc: basavarj.patil@nokia.com; mobopts@irtf.org
>>Subject: Re: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll
>>forI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
>>
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>The deadline for the IRSG poll for I-D:
>>draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions expired on Feb 26th.
>>
>>So far we have received one no objection vote. Would like to
>>hear from a few other people.
>>I am extending the deadline to March 15th. Please respond to the poll.
>>
>>Again the choices are:
>>
>>    o  'Ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read and reasonably
>>        detailed review
>>
>>    o  'Not ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read,
>>       reasonably detailed review, and actionable comments.
>>
>>    o  'No objection' -- I don't object if this document
>>      goes forward;
>>       I've read the document (perhaps quickly); I have some small
>>       comments which are not show stoppers; I don't have great
>>       expertise in the area.
>>
>>    o  'Request more time to review' -- a commitment to provide a
>>       thorough review in a specified period of time.
>>
>>Rgds,
>>-Basavaraj
>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
>>> > [mailto:mobopts-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> > Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:25 PM
>>> > To: irsg@isi.edu
>>> > Cc: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; mobopts@irtf.org
>>> > Subject: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll for
>>> > I-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > The Mobopts RG I-D:
>>> > draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions has completed IRSG
>>> > review.
>>> > The revised version of the I-D (Rev 12) which incorporates the
>>> > comments is now available at:
>>> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-mobopts-locatio
>>> > n-privacy-solu
>>> > tions-12.txt.
>>> >
>>> > Michael Welzl who has performed the IRSG review and the Mobopts RG
>>> > have approved the revised I-D to be progressed for publication.
>>> >
>>> > The IRSG review is available from the IRTF tracker web page at:
>>> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/24
>>> >
>>> > Please consider this email as the start of a two week IRSG
>>> poll. The
>>> > deadline for this poll is : Feb 26th, 2009.
>>> >
>>> > Please use one of the poll responses defined below.
>>> > The possible poll responses are:
>>> >
>>> >     o  'Ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read and
>>reasonably
>>> >         detailed review
>>> >
>>> >     o  'Not ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read,
>>> reasonably
>>> >        detailed review, and actionable comments.
>>> >
>>> >     o  'No objection' -- I don't object if this document
>>> goes forward;
>>> >        I've read the document (perhaps quickly); I have some small
>>> >        comments which are not show stoppers; I don't have great
>>> >        expertise in the area.
>>> >
>>> >     o  'Request more time to review' -- a commitment to provide a
>>> >        thorough review in a specified period of time.
>>> >
>>> > The most relevant rule is that "At least two other IRSG members
>>> > (besides the one sponsoring the document) need to vote 'ready to
>>> > publish' for the document to move forward."
>>> >
>>> > Please review and submit your vote.
>>> >
>>> > -Basavaraj
>>> > Document Shepherd for the I-D
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Mobopts mailing list
>>> > Mobopts@irtf.org
>>> > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>>> >
>>
>>
>>This email and any attachments may contain legally privileged
>>and/or confidential information of Starent Networks, Corp. and
>>is intended only for the individual or entity named in the
>>message.  The information transmitted may not be used to
>>create or change any contractual obligations of Starent
>>Networks, Corp.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
>>other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this
>>e-mail and its attachments by persons or entities other than
>>the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the
>>intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by
>>replying to this message or by sending an email to
>>postmaster@starentnetworks.com -- and destroy all copies of
>>this message and any attachments without reading or disclosing
>>their contents. Thank you.
>>_______________________________________________
>>Mobopts mailing list
>>Mobopts@irtf.org
>>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Mobopts mailing list
> Mobopts@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts 

Institute for Infocomm Research disclaimer:  "This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you."