Subject: [Dime] FW: Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:17:00 +0100

Document editors,

Please address the issue raised by Robert in his DISCUSS. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:25 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS)

Robert Sparks has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The relationship between this and the document specifying "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6"
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr/> (currently in last call) is not clear. What level of coordination exists between DIME and NETEXT on these documents? Are the authorization steps described in this document actually part of the protocol being specified by netext?

Note that neither document currently references the other.