Re: [Mobopts] MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt
"Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> Tue, 03 February 2009 18:51 UTC
Return-Path: <mobopts-bounces@irtf.org>
X-Original-To: mobopts-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mobopts-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB533A695C; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:51:23 -0800 (PST)
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 D11F93A695C for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:51:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.86
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
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 fEl5CnnOhhcv for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com (mx0.starentnetworks.com [12.38.223.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEAD3A6829 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6122F9002C for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:50:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.starentnetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30343-11 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:50:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com [10.2.4.28]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:50:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com ([10.2.4.31]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:50:52 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:50:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A266606543031@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <b6d6bbe00901271946l6bd665d5sf877c9ead13de906@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Mobopts] MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt
Thread-Index: AcmA+wTatk7V1CUSTK+KtpZsWvVkdQFNg10g
From: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>
To: fan zhao <fanzhao828@gmail.com>, Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2009 18:50:52.0715 (UTC) FILETIME=[56A7A7B0:01C98630]
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.2.1 (20041222) at mx0.starentnetworks.com
Cc: rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com, IRSG@isi.edu, mobopts@irtf.org, basavaraj.patil@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt
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/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
Errors-To: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
Hi Michael, Are you okay with the revisions, so that I can go ahead with the next step in publication? Thanks, -Rajeev > -----Original Message----- > From: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org > [mailto:mobopts-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of fan zhao > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:46 PM > To: Michael Welzl > Cc: rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com; IRSG@isi.edu; > basavaraj.patil@nokia.com; mobopts@irtf.org > Subject: Re: [Mobopts] > MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks a lot for your review. We revised the draft based on > your review and a new version should be available soon in the > IETF repository. > In addition, please see my reply below. > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Michael Welzl > <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I can see that the document has been thoroughly revised, > and would say > > that it is now *almost* ready to move forward. I have a couple of > > suggested changes regarding the presentation, but these should not > > stop the process in my opinion. > > > > > > * Page 11: this sentence appears to be broken: > > One scenario is that the correspondent node may be able to > or already > > know the real home address > Fixed. The new text is: > "One scenario is that the correspondent node is able to obtain the > mobile node's real home address and initiates > communication with the > mobile node by using the real home address." > > > > > * Next sentence: "conceals" => "conceal" > OK > > > > > * Next par: missing "the" before "mobile node" in > > "With this solution, mobile node first obtains a home". > Double "the" > > in the next sentence. > Corrected. > > > > > * page 12: I'm no native speaker, so I might be wrong, but > the repeated > > use of "such" without an article ("such Binding Update > message", "such > > home agent") strikes me as odd. This appears again later > on page 13 > > ("such message") and should be corrected throughout the document > > (just do a text search on "such") if it's wrong. But > maybe it isn't. > Fixed. > > > > > * next couple of pages: the (multiple) use of "... is shown > as follows." > > before > > descriptions of packet headers seems odd to me, and > should probably > > be replaced, e.g. with "is shown below" or (probably > better) simply > > with "is:". > > I suggest to do a text search on "shown as follows" in > this document to > > fix this problem everywhere (e.g. it also appears on page 25). > ok, done. > > > > > * top of page 17: "is visible" => "are visible" > > ok. > > > > * page 22: "setforth" => "set forth" > ok. > > > > > * page 23: 6.1 par ends without ".". 2nd par of 6.1.1.1: > should begin > > with "Using _the_ pseudo ...". Also, remove "And" 's starting > > the last two sentences of this par. > ok. > > > > > * 6.1.1.2: first sentence of first par ends unexpectedly - > missing noun. > > 2nd par: "The home agent do not have" => "The home agent > does not have" > ok. > > > > > * 6.1.2 first par: missing the "the" before "real" in > > "The de-registration of real home address" > ok. > > > > > * page 25: "When receiving a Home Test Init message, the > home agent performs > > operation as specified in Section 6.6.4." > > => "When receiving a Home Test Init message, the home > agent performs > > the operation specified in Section 6.6.4. > ok. > > > > > * page 26: "When the home agent intercepts such Home Test message > > using proxy > > Neighbor Discovery, it performs operation as specified in > > Section 6.6.5." => > > "When the home agent intercepts such Home Test message using proxy > > Neighbor Discovery, it performs the operation specified in > > Section 6.6.5." > ok. > > > > > * In this part of the text (a few pages up and down), I > think it would > > be good > > to generally replace "such operation" with "this operation" > done > > > > > * end of 6.3.2: "in details" => "in detail" (or maybe just > remove "in > > details" altogether) > ok. > > > > > * end of 6.5.1.1: "There MUST be no" => "There MUST NOT be any" > ok. > > > > > * 6.5.3 par 2: "mobile mode" => "mobile node" > ok. > > > > > * 6.5.6 par 1: "Such packets SHOULD be sent encrypted in > the Encrypted > > Home Address option." sounds as if the whole packet should > be embedded > > in this option, which is surely not what you mean. Probably > you mean > > "should contain an Encrypted ..." > Corrected. > > > > > * 6.6.2 2nd bullet: "is set is 0" => "is set as 0" > > (btw I think that, generally, "is set to" would be better, and a > > text search > > for "is set as" and corresponding change could fix that problem) > ok. > > > > > * 3rd bullet: fix sentences starting with "Or" => remove "Or" or fix > > this in some other way > > ok. > > > > * 6.7 par 1: "The additional operations are same > > as specified in Section 5.5," > > => "The additional operations are the same > > as specified in Section 5.5," > > ok. > > > > * end of 7.1 and 7.2: "MUST not" => "MUST NOT" > > ok. > > > > * I think that the whole document might become a bit easier > to read if you > > would move section 7 to the front! (i.e. introduce the mobile ipv6 > > extensions before describing their usage) > > > > * last par of 7.4: remove comma in "This field is not present, when > > the home" > ok. > > > > > * sec 8 1st sentence: "one of _THE_ security...". further down: > > " we provide _AN_ in-depth analysis" > ok. > > > > > * 8.1 first par first sentence: "strong security strength" > seems odd, > > remove "strength" > > ok. > > > > * 8.3: wrong use of "such as" (could be replaced with "e.g., ") in > > "For example, the Encrypted Home > > Address option may be used by attackers to launch > reflection attacks, > > such as by indicating the IP address of a victim node in the > > Encrypted Home Address option." > fxied. > > > > > * A, par 2: "consideration When" => "consideration when" > ok > > > > > * A.3: remove "the" in ""To resist this kind of the > profiling attack" > ok. > > > > > * A.5: either missing "a" before "traffic" in "perform > traffic analysis", > > or "analysis" => "analyses" > ok. > > > > > * Throughout the document, the use of examples within > lengthy sentences > > is disturbing. There is this prevalent style: "If the color of a > > fruit is bright, > > for example, apples can be green or red, then it can > easily be seen." > > This seems to be bad to me, and should probably be fixed > by splitting > > the sentence or occasionally changing the sequence to > something like: > > "If the color of a fruit is bright -- apples, for example, can be > > green or red -- > > then it can easily be seen." A concrete example from A.6: > > > > "The algorithm to generate randomness is implementation > > specific, for example, it can be any random number generator." > > => "The algorithm to generate randomness is implementation > > specific. It can, for example, be an arbitrary random > number generator." > > > > I strongly suggest to fix this everywhere, by searching > for "for example" > > and accordingly updating the sentences one by one. > done. > > > > > * A.8 par 2: "Generally, the more frequently, the higher > _THE_ probability > > that the profiling attack is resisted and" > ok. > > > > > > > Finally, the document is partially (e.g. in the intro > section) a bit > > hard to read because of lengthy sentences and forward references > > (stating that this terminology or this mechanism *will* be > introduced > > in section whatever - couldn't sections be reordered to > avoid this?). > > It wouldn't hurt to read and update the whole document > again, just to > > try and make all sentences and descriptions a bit more concise. In > > some places, alternative ways of describing algorithms / protocol > > operation rather than plain text could be helpful. It also > uses "paper > > language" in some places - cf. my comment about the 1st sentence of > > sec 8 above: why do you even need to say "in-depth" in an I-D? > > Similarly, mentioning future work at the end of the > conclusion of is > > probably inappropriate. > We also read through the draft and correct other typos. > I am fine with removing the sentence on the future work, if > other authors also agree. > > Thanks a lot for your review. We appreciate it. > > Sincerely, > fan > > > > > Technically, the I-D is fine as far as I can tell - which > doesn't mean > > much, though, as I'm not at all an expert on that topic. I > must admit > > that I didn't closely follow the recent discussion in the > IRSG about > > what kind of specification an RG can write, but I remember > a note from > > Sally saying that an RG I-D shouldn't specify a standard protocol > > behavior - could someone please take a quick look to check > whether the > > kind of specification that this document constitutes is appropriate > > for an RG? > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rajeev Koodli" <rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com> > > To: <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> > > Cc: <IRSG@isi.edu>; <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>; > <mobopts@irtf.org>; > > <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> > > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:54 PM > > Subject: MobOpts: > draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt > > > > > >> > >> Hi Michael, > >> > >> you were the IRSG reviewer for this draft. The ID has gone through > >> major > > revision and a subsequent RG LC. I believe that it is ready > to move forward. > > Please have a look. > >> > >> > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privac > > y-solutions-11.txt > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Rajeev > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mobopts mailing list > > Mobopts@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Return-Path: <Michael.Welzl@uibk.ac.at> 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 9AB5028C0DC for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:06:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.631 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] 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 qTgXJ+uWFgQS for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:06:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.uibk.ac.at (lmr1.uibk.ac.at [138.232.1.142]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB683A6A40 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:06:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (lwm1.uibk.ac.at [138.232.1.160] Michael.Welzl@uibk.ac.at) by smtp.uibk.ac.at (8.13.8/8.13.8/F1) with ESMTP id n13M5laa002777; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:05:47 +0100 Received: from proxy2.cc.swin.edu.au (proxy2.cc.swin.edu.au [136.186.1.188]) by web-mail1.uibk.ac.at (IMP) with HTTP for <c70370@mail1.uibk.ac.at>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:05:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1233698747.4988bfbbdff62@web-mail1.uibk.ac.at> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:05:47 +0100 From: Michael Welzl <Michael.Welzl@uibk.ac.at> To: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> References: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A266606543031$0001@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A266606543031$0001@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.8 X-Originating-IP: 136.186.1.188 X-Forwarded-For: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 at uibk.ac.at on 138.232.1.140 Cc: rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com, IRSG@isi.edu, mobopts@irtf.org, basavaraj.patil@nokia.com Subject: Re: [Mobopts] MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt 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/mailman/private/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: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:06:15 -0000 Hi, Sorry! It wasn't clear to me that I was supposed to answer this email and say so: yes, I am, yes you can go ahead as far as I'm concerned! Cheers, Michael Zitat von "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>: > > Hi Michael, > > Are you okay with the revisions, so that I can go ahead with the next > step in publication? > > Thanks, > > -Rajeev > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org > > [mailto:mobopts-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of fan zhao > > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:46 PM > > To: Michael Welzl > > Cc: rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com; IRSG@isi.edu; > > basavaraj.patil@nokia.com; mobopts@irtf.org > > Subject: Re: [Mobopts] > > MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks a lot for your review. We revised the draft based on > > your review and a new version should be available soon in the > > IETF repository. > > In addition, please see my reply below. > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Michael Welzl > > <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I can see that the document has been thoroughly revised, > > and would say > > > that it is now *almost* ready to move forward. I have a couple of > > > suggested changes regarding the presentation, but these should not > > > stop the process in my opinion. > > > > > > > > > * Page 11: this sentence appears to be broken: > > > One scenario is that the correspondent node may be able to > > or already > > > know the real home address > > Fixed. The new text is: > > "One scenario is that the correspondent node is able to obtain the > > mobile node's real home address and initiates > > communication with the > > mobile node by using the real home address." > > > > > > > > * Next sentence: "conceals" => "conceal" > > OK > > > > > > > > * Next par: missing "the" before "mobile node" in > > > "With this solution, mobile node first obtains a home". > > Double "the" > > > in the next sentence. > > Corrected. > > > > > > > > * page 12: I'm no native speaker, so I might be wrong, but > > the repeated > > > use of "such" without an article ("such Binding Update > > message", "such > > > home agent") strikes me as odd. This appears again later > > on page 13 > > > ("such message") and should be corrected throughout the document > > > (just do a text search on "such") if it's wrong. But > > maybe it isn't. > > Fixed. > > > > > > > > * next couple of pages: the (multiple) use of "... is shown > > as follows." > > > before > > > descriptions of packet headers seems odd to me, and > > should probably > > > be replaced, e.g. with "is shown below" or (probably > > better) simply > > > with "is:". > > > I suggest to do a text search on "shown as follows" in > > this document to > > > fix this problem everywhere (e.g. it also appears on page 25). > > ok, done. > > > > > > > > * top of page 17: "is visible" => "are visible" > > > > ok. > > > > > > * page 22: "setforth" => "set forth" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * page 23: 6.1 par ends without ".". 2nd par of 6.1.1.1: > > should begin > > > with "Using _the_ pseudo ...". Also, remove "And" 's starting > > > the last two sentences of this par. > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 6.1.1.2: first sentence of first par ends unexpectedly - > > missing noun. > > > 2nd par: "The home agent do not have" => "The home agent > > does not have" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 6.1.2 first par: missing the "the" before "real" in > > > "The de-registration of real home address" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * page 25: "When receiving a Home Test Init message, the > > home agent performs > > > operation as specified in Section 6.6.4." > > > => "When receiving a Home Test Init message, the home > > agent performs > > > the operation specified in Section 6.6.4. > > ok. > > > > > > > > * page 26: "When the home agent intercepts such Home Test message > > > using proxy > > > Neighbor Discovery, it performs operation as specified in > > > Section 6.6.5." => > > > "When the home agent intercepts such Home Test message using proxy > > > Neighbor Discovery, it performs the operation specified in > > > Section 6.6.5." > > ok. > > > > > > > > * In this part of the text (a few pages up and down), I > > think it would > > > be good > > > to generally replace "such operation" with "this operation" > > done > > > > > > > > * end of 6.3.2: "in details" => "in detail" (or maybe just > > remove "in > > > details" altogether) > > ok. > > > > > > > > * end of 6.5.1.1: "There MUST be no" => "There MUST NOT be any" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 6.5.3 par 2: "mobile mode" => "mobile node" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 6.5.6 par 1: "Such packets SHOULD be sent encrypted in > > the Encrypted > > > Home Address option." sounds as if the whole packet should > > be embedded > > > in this option, which is surely not what you mean. Probably > > you mean > > > "should contain an Encrypted ..." > > Corrected. > > > > > > > > * 6.6.2 2nd bullet: "is set is 0" => "is set as 0" > > > (btw I think that, generally, "is set to" would be better, and a > > > text search > > > for "is set as" and corresponding change could fix that problem) > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 3rd bullet: fix sentences starting with "Or" => remove "Or" or fix > > > this in some other way > > > > ok. > > > > > > * 6.7 par 1: "The additional operations are same > > > as specified in Section 5.5," > > > => "The additional operations are the same > > > as specified in Section 5.5," > > > > ok. > > > > > > * end of 7.1 and 7.2: "MUST not" => "MUST NOT" > > > > ok. > > > > > > * I think that the whole document might become a bit easier > > to read if you > > > would move section 7 to the front! (i.e. introduce the mobile ipv6 > > > extensions before describing their usage) > > > > > > * last par of 7.4: remove comma in "This field is not present, when > > > the home" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * sec 8 1st sentence: "one of _THE_ security...". further down: > > > " we provide _AN_ in-depth analysis" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 8.1 first par first sentence: "strong security strength" > > seems odd, > > > remove "strength" > > > > ok. > > > > > > * 8.3: wrong use of "such as" (could be replaced with "e.g., ") in > > > "For example, the Encrypted Home > > > Address option may be used by attackers to launch > > reflection attacks, > > > such as by indicating the IP address of a victim node in the > > > Encrypted Home Address option." > > fxied. > > > > > > > > * A, par 2: "consideration When" => "consideration when" > > ok > > > > > > > > * A.3: remove "the" in ""To resist this kind of the > > profiling attack" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * A.5: either missing "a" before "traffic" in "perform > > traffic analysis", > > > or "analysis" => "analyses" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * Throughout the document, the use of examples within > > lengthy sentences > > > is disturbing. There is this prevalent style: "If the color of a > > > fruit is bright, > > > for example, apples can be green or red, then it can > > easily be seen." > > > This seems to be bad to me, and should probably be fixed > > by splitting > > > the sentence or occasionally changing the sequence to > > something like: > > > "If the color of a fruit is bright -- apples, for example, can be > > > green or red -- > > > then it can easily be seen." A concrete example from A.6: > > > > > > "The algorithm to generate randomness is implementation > > > specific, for example, it can be any random number generator." > > > => "The algorithm to generate randomness is implementation > > > specific. It can, for example, be an arbitrary random > > number generator." > > > > > > I strongly suggest to fix this everywhere, by searching > > for "for example" > > > and accordingly updating the sentences one by one. > > done. > > > > > > > > * A.8 par 2: "Generally, the more frequently, the higher > > _THE_ probability > > > that the profiling attack is resisted and" > > ok. > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the document is partially (e.g. in the intro > > section) a bit > > > hard to read because of lengthy sentences and forward references > > > (stating that this terminology or this mechanism *will* be > > introduced > > > in section whatever - couldn't sections be reordered to > > avoid this?). > > > It wouldn't hurt to read and update the whole document > > again, just to > > > try and make all sentences and descriptions a bit more concise. In > > > some places, alternative ways of describing algorithms / protocol > > > operation rather than plain text could be helpful. It also > > uses "paper > > > language" in some places - cf. my comment about the 1st sentence of > > > sec 8 above: why do you even need to say "in-depth" in an I-D? > > > Similarly, mentioning future work at the end of the > > conclusion of is > > > probably inappropriate. > > We also read through the draft and correct other typos. > > I am fine with removing the sentence on the future work, if > > other authors also agree. > > > > Thanks a lot for your review. We appreciate it. > > > > Sincerely, > > fan > > > > > > > > Technically, the I-D is fine as far as I can tell - which > > doesn't mean > > > much, though, as I'm not at all an expert on that topic. I > > must admit > > > that I didn't closely follow the recent discussion in the > > IRSG about > > > what kind of specification an RG can write, but I remember > > a note from > > > Sally saying that an RG I-D shouldn't specify a standard protocol > > > behavior - could someone please take a quick look to check > > whether the > > > kind of specification that this document constitutes is appropriate > > > for an RG? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rajeev Koodli" <rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com> > > > To: <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> > > > Cc: <IRSG@isi.edu>; <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>; > > <mobopts@irtf.org>; > > > <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> > > > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:54 PM > > > Subject: MobOpts: > > draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Hi Michael, > > >> > > >> you were the IRSG reviewer for this draft. The ID has gone through > > >> major > > > revision and a subsequent RG LC. I believe that it is ready > > to move forward. > > > Please have a look. > > >> > > >> > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privac > > > y-solutions-11.txt > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> -Rajeev > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Mobopts mailing list > > > Mobopts@irtf.org > > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > Return-Path: <rajeev.koodli@gmail.com> 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 782D63A6C55 for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:05:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] 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 E4O+IFCVZUvs for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:05:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08143A6C53 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m33so1111358wag.23 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:05:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZfkxvsVf11pJIfeUJI41Nk7yCY9uHheZ4xhQ+KmwMkE=; b=FLwtWRp8IreNFg3MmJYNGvcGFbsTjFY6h6y7m18xtx9UBfWIFP/ZgagXtZWHKmyHbs 0VEiAO8waYXv7KjglWC0UK2OEJdP4vLGHw8WqD3+QIs/HVmukGvtcq/TuE7gNMWyDUHk Z0LTNnGjjgKj6Nfxw399fCeNk3kHfJ3Wh1mas= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CN5fha9RV1hPvocthuLXpFPtLFQ4ocpr3Hk1qGKyj+mkel6HcbRVZqVQWP1UwPPQHV AC8UCGaJdBHEo0X3R6eWJk94FmZ1Bu6MKohj+sFCgTpvqDYNxaSexhEx/qUPGvOTtaGQ m+9wpgfhpL4sOU9Z7B0F0bkjLqaNTYMP5h/sI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.133.1 with SMTP id g1mr4017696wad.162.1233705934402; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:05:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1233698747.4988bfbbdff62@web-mail1.uibk.ac.at> References: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A266606543031$0001@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com> <1233698747.4988bfbbdff62@web-mail1.uibk.ac.at> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:05:34 -0800 Message-ID: <3d57679a0902031605p55081102g94e4cf77269edd51@mail.gmail.com> From: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@gmail.com> To: falk@bbn.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "mobopts@irtf.org" <mobopts@irtf.org>, basavaraj.patil@nokia.com Subject: [Mobopts] Fwd: MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt 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/mailman/private/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: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:05:55 -0000 Hi Aaron, this RG doc has completed the IRSG review. I have made the updates to the tracker (ticket #24) at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/24 Could you please initiate the IRSG poll so that we can move this forward? Many thanks, -Rajeev ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Welzl <Michael.Welzl@uibk.ac.at> Date: Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [Mobopts] MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt To: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> Cc: rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com, IRSG@isi.edu, mobopts@irtf.org, basavaraj.patil@nokia.com Hi, Sorry! It wasn't clear to me that I was supposed to answer this email and say so: yes, I am, yes you can go ahead as far as I'm concerned! Cheers, Michael Zitat von "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>: > > Hi Michael, > > Are you okay with the revisions, so that I can go ahead with the next > step in publication? > > Thanks, > > -Rajeev > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org > > [mailto:mobopts-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of fan zhao > > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:46 PM > > To: Michael Welzl > > Cc: rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com; IRSG@isi.edu; > > basavaraj.patil@nokia.com; mobopts@irtf.org > > Subject: Re: [Mobopts] > > MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks a lot for your review. We revised the draft based on > > your review and a new version should be available soon in the > > IETF repository. > > In addition, please see my reply below. > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Michael Welzl > > <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I can see that the document has been thoroughly revised, > > and would say > > > that it is now *almost* ready to move forward. I have a couple of > > > suggested changes regarding the presentation, but these should not > > > stop the process in my opinion. > > > > > > > > > * Page 11: this sentence appears to be broken: > > > One scenario is that the correspondent node may be able to > > or already > > > know the real home address > > Fixed. The new text is: > > "One scenario is that the correspondent node is able to obtain the > > mobile node's real home address and initiates > > communication with the > > mobile node by using the real home address." > > > > > > > > * Next sentence: "conceals" => "conceal" > > OK > > > > > > > > * Next par: missing "the" before "mobile node" in > > > "With this solution, mobile node first obtains a home". > > Double "the" > > > in the next sentence. > > Corrected. > > > > > > > > * page 12: I'm no native speaker, so I might be wrong, but > > the repeated > > > use of "such" without an article ("such Binding Update > > message", "such > > > home agent") strikes me as odd. This appears again later > > on page 13 > > > ("such message") and should be corrected throughout the document > > > (just do a text search on "such") if it's wrong. But > > maybe it isn't. > > Fixed. > > > > > > > > * next couple of pages: the (multiple) use of "... is shown > > as follows." > > > before > > > descriptions of packet headers seems odd to me, and > > should probably > > > be replaced, e.g. with "is shown below" or (probably > > better) simply > > > with "is:". > > > I suggest to do a text search on "shown as follows" in > > this document to > > > fix this problem everywhere (e.g. it also appears on page 25). > > ok, done. > > > > > > > > * top of page 17: "is visible" => "are visible" > > > > ok. > > > > > > * page 22: "setforth" => "set forth" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * page 23: 6.1 par ends without ".". 2nd par of 6.1.1.1: > > should begin > > > with "Using _the_ pseudo ...". Also, remove "And" 's starting > > > the last two sentences of this par. > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 6.1.1.2: first sentence of first par ends unexpectedly - > > missing noun. > > > 2nd par: "The home agent do not have" => "The home agent > > does not have" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 6.1.2 first par: missing the "the" before "real" in > > > "The de-registration of real home address" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * page 25: "When receiving a Home Test Init message, the > > home agent performs > > > operation as specified in Section 6.6.4." > > > => "When receiving a Home Test Init message, the home > > agent performs > > > the operation specified in Section 6.6.4. > > ok. > > > > > > > > * page 26: "When the home agent intercepts such Home Test message > > > using proxy > > > Neighbor Discovery, it performs operation as specified in > > > Section 6.6.5." => > > > "When the home agent intercepts such Home Test message using proxy > > > Neighbor Discovery, it performs the operation specified in > > > Section 6.6.5." > > ok. > > > > > > > > * In this part of the text (a few pages up and down), I > > think it would > > > be good > > > to generally replace "such operation" with "this operation" > > done > > > > > > > > * end of 6.3.2: "in details" => "in detail" (or maybe just > > remove "in > > > details" altogether) > > ok. > > > > > > > > * end of 6.5.1.1: "There MUST be no" => "There MUST NOT be any" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 6.5.3 par 2: "mobile mode" => "mobile node" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 6.5.6 par 1: "Such packets SHOULD be sent encrypted in > > the Encrypted > > > Home Address option." sounds as if the whole packet should > > be embedded > > > in this option, which is surely not what you mean. Probably > > you mean > > > "should contain an Encrypted ..." > > Corrected. > > > > > > > > * 6.6.2 2nd bullet: "is set is 0" => "is set as 0" > > > (btw I think that, generally, "is set to" would be better, and a > > > text search > > > for "is set as" and corresponding change could fix that problem) > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 3rd bullet: fix sentences starting with "Or" => remove "Or" or fix > > > this in some other way > > > > ok. > > > > > > * 6.7 par 1: "The additional operations are same > > > as specified in Section 5.5," > > > => "The additional operations are the same > > > as specified in Section 5.5," > > > > ok. > > > > > > * end of 7.1 and 7.2: "MUST not" => "MUST NOT" > > > > ok. > > > > > > * I think that the whole document might become a bit easier > > to read if you > > > would move section 7 to the front! (i.e. introduce the mobile ipv6 > > > extensions before describing their usage) > > > > > > * last par of 7.4: remove comma in "This field is not present, when > > > the home" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * sec 8 1st sentence: "one of _THE_ security...". further down: > > > " we provide _AN_ in-depth analysis" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * 8.1 first par first sentence: "strong security strength" > > seems odd, > > > remove "strength" > > > > ok. > > > > > > * 8.3: wrong use of "such as" (could be replaced with "e.g., ") in > > > "For example, the Encrypted Home > > > Address option may be used by attackers to launch > > reflection attacks, > > > such as by indicating the IP address of a victim node in the > > > Encrypted Home Address option." > > fxied. > > > > > > > > * A, par 2: "consideration When" => "consideration when" > > ok > > > > > > > > * A.3: remove "the" in ""To resist this kind of the > > profiling attack" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * A.5: either missing "a" before "traffic" in "perform > > traffic analysis", > > > or "analysis" => "analyses" > > ok. > > > > > > > > * Throughout the document, the use of examples within > > lengthy sentences > > > is disturbing. There is this prevalent style: "If the color of a > > > fruit is bright, > > > for example, apples can be green or red, then it can > > easily be seen." > > > This seems to be bad to me, and should probably be fixed > > by splitting > > > the sentence or occasionally changing the sequence to > > something like: > > > "If the color of a fruit is bright -- apples, for example, can be > > > green or red -- > > > then it can easily be seen." A concrete example from A.6: > > > > > > "The algorithm to generate randomness is implementation > > > specific, for example, it can be any random number generator." > > > => "The algorithm to generate randomness is implementation > > > specific. It can, for example, be an arbitrary random > > number generator." > > > > > > I strongly suggest to fix this everywhere, by searching > > for "for example" > > > and accordingly updating the sentences one by one. > > done. > > > > > > > > * A.8 par 2: "Generally, the more frequently, the higher > > _THE_ probability > > > that the profiling attack is resisted and" > > ok. > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the document is partially (e.g. in the intro > > section) a bit > > > hard to read because of lengthy sentences and forward references > > > (stating that this terminology or this mechanism *will* be > > introduced > > > in section whatever - couldn't sections be reordered to > > avoid this?). > > > It wouldn't hurt to read and update the whole document > > again, just to > > > try and make all sentences and descriptions a bit more concise. In > > > some places, alternative ways of describing algorithms / protocol > > > operation rather than plain text could be helpful. It also > > uses "paper > > > language" in some places - cf. my comment about the 1st sentence of > > > sec 8 above: why do you even need to say "in-depth" in an I-D? > > > Similarly, mentioning future work at the end of the > > conclusion of is > > > probably inappropriate. > > We also read through the draft and correct other typos. > > I am fine with removing the sentence on the future work, if > > other authors also agree. > > > > Thanks a lot for your review. We appreciate it. > > > > Sincerely, > > fan > > > > > > > > Technically, the I-D is fine as far as I can tell - which > > doesn't mean > > > much, though, as I'm not at all an expert on that topic. I > > must admit > > > that I didn't closely follow the recent discussion in the > > IRSG about > > > what kind of specification an RG can write, but I remember > > a note from > > > Sally saying that an RG I-D shouldn't specify a standard protocol > > > behavior - could someone please take a quick look to check > > whether the > > > kind of specification that this document constitutes is appropriate > > > for an RG? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rajeev Koodli" <rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com> > > > To: <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> > > > Cc: <IRSG@isi.edu>; <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>; > > <mobopts@irtf.org>; > > > <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> > > > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:54 PM > > > Subject: MobOpts: > > draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Hi Michael, > > >> > > >> you were the IRSG reviewer for this draft. The ID has gone through > > >> major > > > revision and a subsequent RG LC. I believe that it is ready > > to move forward. > > > Please have a look. > > >> > > >> > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privac > > > y-solutions-11.txt > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> -Rajeev > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Mobopts mailing list > > > Mobopts@irtf.org > > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Return-Path: <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> 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 9F8C13A6CFC for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:47:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.85 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] 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 mIqyxprN3o7h for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:47:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com (mx0.starentnetworks.com [12.38.223.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023013A6D12 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:47:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6C49008F for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.starentnetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27967-02 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com [10.2.4.28]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com ([10.2.4.31]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:46:09 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:46:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A2666067A1FA2@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-06.txt Thread-Index: AcmL0NtKVHFGpIy5S9u3sIP0LtpsjAAAUx7w From: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> To: <mobopts@irtf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2009 22:46:09.0466 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DC929A0:01C98BD1] X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.2.1 (20041222) at mx0.starentnetworks.com Subject: [Mobopts] FW: draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-06.txt 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/mailman/private/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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:47:55 -0000 =20 > Subject: draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-06.txt > To: falk@bbn.com > Cc: irsg@isi.edu, rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com > Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 2:38 PM=20 > > Hi Aaron, >=20 > The MobOpts RG document needs IRSG review. I have captured the details > on the tracker: >=20 > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/26 >=20 > Could you kindly assign a reviewer so that we can progress the=20 > document? >=20 > Thank you. >=20 > -Rajeev =20 Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> 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 4030C3A6C36 for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:25:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_SOLTNS=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] 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 wHC3NjAJrwyc for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:25:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CF328C132 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n1BNPNAB030729; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:25:24 +0200 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:25:23 +0200 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:25:18 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:25:13 +0200 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.108]) by nok-am1mhub-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:25:12 +0100 From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> To: <irsg@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:25:22 +0100 Thread-Topic: IRSG Poll for I-D: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions Thread-Index: AcmMoAJrECRqzS1pjkyOYuqkhWO/Nw== Message-ID: <C5B8BA82.22AAD%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2009 23:25:13.0473 (UTC) FILETIME=[FD55FF10:01C98C9F] X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:43:34 -0800 Cc: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, mobopts@irtf.org Subject: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll for I-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/mailman/private/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: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:25:26 -0000 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-location-privacy-sol= u 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 th= e 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 Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> 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 46CD63A693B for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:36:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] 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 J3PiBdn7shhU for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A593A684F for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61202C0027; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:36:27 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYcAtg0XYPgw; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:36:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B060FC0025; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:36:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id AA4739A3018; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:36:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:36:19 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Message-ID: <20090217073619.GA5986@elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de> Mail-Followup-To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, irsg@ISI.EDU, mobopts@irtf.org References: <C5B8BA82.22AAD%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <C5B8BA82.22AAD%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:35:56 -0800 Cc: irsg@ISI.EDU, mobopts@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] IRSG Poll for I-D: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de 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/mailman/private/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: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:36:19 -0000 On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:25:22AM +0100, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote: > Please consider this email as the start of a two week IRSG poll. The > deadline for this poll is : Feb 26th, 2009. I vote 'no objection'. This seems to be solid, significant and relevant work but I can't claim to understand all the details. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
- [Mobopts] MobOpts: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-pr… Rajeev Koodli
- Re: [Mobopts] MobOpts: draft-irtf-mobopts-locatio… Rajeev Koodli
- Re: [Mobopts] MobOpts: draft-irtf-mobopts-locatio… Michael Welzl
- Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-l… Michael Welzl
- Re: [Mobopts] MobOpts: draft-irtf-mobopts-locatio… fan zhao
- Re: [Mobopts] MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location… Koodli, Rajeev