I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 29 Feb 2008
IESG Telechat date: 06 March 2008
Version 11 resolves almost all of the issues and nits that I raised in the last
call review of version 10. There is one editorial matter to complete the 'ease
of reading' and an outstanding query which I think both I and the authors
over a little lightly at the previous review.
An editorial update added to s3, para 4 (just after fig 1) to emphasize the
pivotal role of the MN-Identity would be helpful. Something like:
'The authenticated, stable identifier of the mobile node (MN-Identifier)
uniquely identifies the mobile node to the LMA(s) as the node roams through the
Proxy Mobile Domain.'
Outstanding query: s6.1, bullet 2: This bullet refers to '*the* interface
identifier' and suggests that it might be retrieved from a Router Solicitation.
My original point was that the IID for IPv6 addresses is not necessarily
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
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.
original point was to ask the authors to clarify whether ProxyMIP actually
which IID is used and, accordingly, state either that 'it doesn't matter' or
specifically which IID should be transmitted.
IETF mailing list