Sri Gundavelli wrote:
Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for reviewing the updated
draft. We will address the two remaining issues. Please
No problem.. I am stuck in a hotel in Toronto, nit getting to IETF. :-(((
Snipped the first issue as that should be fine.
Outstanding query: s6.1, bullet 2: This bullet refers to
identifier' and suggests that it might be retrieved from a
My original point was that the IID for IPv6 addresses is
common between the addresses configured on an interface. My
comment was a
little glib and the authors glossed over the point in their
reply. I think this
bullet may require clarification to indicate which of the
IIDs would be implied
here. Particularly if SEND is in use, the IID used for the
link local address
(that would typically be found in the solicitation) will a.s.
differ from the
IID used with the address assigned out of the prefix
allocated by Proxy MIP. My
original point was to ask the authors to clarify whether
ProxyMIP actually cares
which IID is used and, accordingly, state either that 'it
doesn't matter' or
specifically which IID should be transmitted.
This is the interface identifier (layer-2) and not the L3 identifier.
This is covered in the terminology section, "Mobile Node Interface
The need for the L2 interface identifier (such as MAC address) is
to predictably identify the interface of a mobile node. The Access
Technology Type in combination with the interface identifier is
used as the index field in the BCE.
Looks like this is not implied. We can point to the
"MN-Interface-Identifier" term and that should probably make it
OK.. I think some clarification is required to make sure that you always
get the same IID. As specified I didn't grok that it had to be the same
one from wherever the node roams to.
I think a few extra words will sort that out and then we are done.
Thanks again, for the review. Hopefully this addresses all the issues
raised by the Gen-art review.
IETF mailing list