From rkoodli@cisco.com Fri Jun 18 14:49:09 2010 Return-Path: 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 3B9363A6981 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:49:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.098, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 f2zEzabzcHaF for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDABA3A6A36 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlkFAG+GG0ytJV2Z/2dsb2JhbACBQ5x6WHGoIJpMhRsEg1KMYw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,441,1272844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="123149349" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2010 21:49:05 +0000 Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (starent-networks-nat-64-102-236-4.cisco.com [64.102.236.4]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5ILn4Dk026591; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:49:04 GMT Received: from exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com ([10.2.4.31]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:48:22 -0400 Received: from 10.21.150.63 ([10.21.150.63]) by exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com ([10.2.4.31]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:49:04 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:54:17 -0700 From: Rajeev Koodli To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 Thread-Index: Acr+uiynEwfjYSyrdE2BrSIU+1F9awQdp+cs In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3359717657_6083238" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2010 21:48:22.0068 (UTC) FILETIME=[F8B4F740:01CB0F2F] Cc: mobopts@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobility Optimizations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:49:09 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3359717657_6083238 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear IRSG, I have not heard any responses on this Poll yet. Could you please respond b= y June 30? 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. Document URL: =20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 Thanks, -Rajeev (Document Shepherd) On 5/28/10 4:04 PM, "Rajeev Koodli" wrote: >=20 > Dear IRSG, >=20 > This is a poll requesting your vote on the ID. > The IRSG review by Juergen Schoenwaelder resulted in a major revision, > followed by another editorial revision. >=20 > The tracker URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/27 >=20 > Please note that the ticket says =B3reopened doc review=B2. This was due to m= y > error in submitting the changes incorrectly on the wiki. The document was= not > closed earlier on. >=20 > Appreciate your prompt consideration of the vote (after the holiday weeke= nd in > the US). >=20 > Regards, >=20 > -Rajeev >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IRSG mailing list > IRSG@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg --B_3359717657_6083238 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07</TITL= E> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt= '><BR> Dear IRSG,<BR> <BR> I have not heard any responses on this Poll yet. Could you please respond b= y June 30?<BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><S= PAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'>Please use one of the poll responses defined belo= w.<BR> <BR> The possible poll responses are:<BR> <BR>     o  'Ready to publish' -- requires a thorough r= ead and reasonably<BR>         detailed review<BR> <BR>     o  'Not ready to publish' -- requires a thorou= gh read, reasonably<BR>        detailed review, and actionable c= omments.<BR> <BR>     o  'No objection' -- I don't object if this do= cument goes forward;<BR>        I've read the document (perhaps q= uickly); I have some small<BR>        comments which are not show stopp= ers; I don't have great<BR>        expertise in the area.<BR> <BR>     o  'Request more time to review' -- a commitme= nt to provide a<BR>        thorough review in a specified pe= riod of time.<BR> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN = STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'><BR> Document URL:  <a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-= mpa-framework-07">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framewor= k-07</a><BR> <BR> Thanks,<BR> <BR> -Rajeev<BR> (Document Shepherd)<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> On 5/28/10 4:04 PM, "Rajeev Koodli" <<a href=3D"rkoodli@cisco.co= m">rkoodli@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<BR> <BR> </SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'><BR> Dear IRSG,<BR> <BR> This is a poll requesting your vote on the ID. <BR> The IRSG review by Juergen Schoenwaelder resulted in a major revision, foll= owed by another editorial revision.<BR> <BR> The tracker URL: <a href=3D"http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket= /27">http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/27</a><BR> <BR> Please note that the ticket says “reopened doc review”. This wa= s due to my error in submitting the changes incorrectly on the wiki. The doc= ument was not closed earlier on.<BR> <BR> Appreciate your prompt consideration of the vote (after the holiday weekend= in the US).<BR> <BR> Regards,<BR> <BR> -Rajeev<BR> <BR> <BR> <HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%"></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FA= CE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'>___________= ____________________________________<BR> IRSG mailing list<BR> <a href=3D"IRSG@mailman.isi.edu">IRSG@mailman.isi.edu</a><BR> <a href=3D"http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg">http://mailman.isi.e= du/mailman/listinfo/irsg</a><BR> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML> --B_3359717657_6083238-- From johnl@iecc.com Fri Jun 18 19:38:24 2010 Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 549203A681C for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:38:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.357, BAYES_05=-1.11, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 kSB0IsGmb6tl for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9803A67CF for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 98145 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2010 02:33:34 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=k1006; bh=a+pz8FxMnU1aunWBfY9Ol4be+zhB5eVBTZRNKRyP0hM=; b=C9+X2RJsTb487nlskIMjeYXr4/3x+AZwoddrmEDIPQA6UslqFADs4m0PaS049NenetJQmRNEO1BXAEH7QKcq5Ef2HRqQfxznWWoSBKy9k5Du4wHOTsGB7tEmvGk3XpSn/lEWr5sE2xI6GL+q6IT5TwMBtdoL703JSR9sOrYCXMU= Received: (ofmipd 64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Jun 2010 02:33:12 -0000 Date: 18 Jun 2010 22:38:23 -0400 Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006182235050.76306@joyce.lan> From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "Rajeev Koodli" <rkoodli@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <C8413919.6A27%rkoodli@cisco.com> References: <C8413919.6A27%rkoodli@cisco.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: irsg@ISI.EDU, mobopts@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 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: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:38:24 -0000 I took a look at it. > 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. There's a few typos but nothing that the RFC editor can't fix. I'd suggest mentioning in the abstract that you implemented this and report experimental performance results, which makes this document considerably more interesting than a pure paper design. R's, John, ASRG chair From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Sun Jun 20 10:30:09 2010 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 45B0F3A687E for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:30:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.637 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.513, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 q77n6AZ4E7QS for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48213A6855 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17078C0008; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:30:11 +0200 (CEST) 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 REngCZeInfWl; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:30:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B421BC0002; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:29:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id E48A1134C206; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:29:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:29:49 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> To: Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com> Message-ID: <20100620172949.GA384@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com>, "irsg@ISI.EDU" <irsg@ISI.EDU>, "mobopts@irtf.org" <mobopts@irtf.org> References: <C8259A22.62EB%rkoodli@cisco.com> <C8413919.6A27%rkoodli@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <C8413919.6A27%rkoodli@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "irsg@ISI.EDU" <irsg@ISI.EDU>, "mobopts@irtf.org" <mobopts@irtf.org> Subject: Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <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/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: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:30:09 -0000 On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:54:17PM +0200, Rajeev Koodli wrote: > > Dear IRSG, > > I have not heard any responses on this Poll yet. Could you please respond by June 30? > > 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. > > Document URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 I give it a 'Ready to publish' vote. /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/> From falk@bbn.com Sun Jun 20 13:48:25 2010 Return-Path: <falk@bbn.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 DBF413A6935 for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:48:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.900, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 zpC5ph2XJx7e for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38BA3A68EA for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.89.254.146] (port=49696 helo=nut-2.local) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <falk@bbn.com>) id 1OQRRJ-000Dqz-5m; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:48:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4C1E7E96.6000409@bbn.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:48:22 -0400 From: Aaron Falk <falk@bbn.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: irsg@ISI.EDU References: <C8413919.6A27%rkoodli@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <C8413919.6A27%rkoodli@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090000030507040008030900" Cc: Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com>, mobopts@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 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: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:48:26 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090000030507040008030900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IRSG- As a reminder, documents require at least one 'Ready to Publish' response to progress. --aaron On 6/18/10 5:54 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote: > > Dear IRSG, > > I have not heard any responses on this Poll yet. Could you please > respond by June 30? > > 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. > > Document URL: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 > > Thanks, > > -Rajeev > (Document Shepherd) > > > > On 5/28/10 4:04 PM, "Rajeev Koodli" <rkoodli@cisco.com> wrote: > > > Dear IRSG, > > This is a poll requesting your vote on the ID. > The IRSG review by Juergen Schoenwaelder resulted in a major > revision, followed by another editorial revision. > > The tracker URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/27 > > Please note that the ticket says "reopened doc review". This was > due to my error in submitting the changes incorrectly on the wiki. > The document was not closed earlier on. > > Appreciate your prompt consideration of the vote (after the > holiday weekend in the US). > > Regards, > > -Rajeev > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > IRSG mailing list > IRSG@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg > > > _______________________________________________ > IRSG mailing list > IRSG@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg > --------------090000030507040008030900 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title> IRSG-

As a reminder, documents require at least one 'Ready to Publish' response to progress.

--aaron

On 6/18/10 5:54 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote:
Re: [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07
Dear IRSG,

I have not heard any responses on this Poll yet. Could you please respond by June 30?

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.

Document URL:  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07

Thanks,

-Rajeev
(Document Shepherd)



On 5/28/10 4:04 PM, "Rajeev Koodli" <rkoodli@cisco.com> wrote:

Dear IRSG,

This is a poll requesting your vote on the ID.
The IRSG review by Juergen Schoenwaelder resulted in a major revision, followed by another editorial revision.

The tracker URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/27

Please note that the ticket says “reopened doc review”. This was due to my error in submitting the changes incorrectly on the wiki. The document was not closed earlier on.

Appreciate your prompt consideration of the vote (after the holiday weekend in the US).

Regards,

-Rajeev


_______________________________________________
IRSG mailing list
IRSG@mailman.isi.edu
http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg

_______________________________________________
IRSG mailing list
IRSG@mailman.isi.edu
http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg
--------------090000030507040008030900-- From rkoodli@cisco.com Sun Jun 27 18:05:15 2010 Return-Path: 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 7D48D3A6867 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:05:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.520, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 91YzkyvBZdtX for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A8D3A684E for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABqSJ0ytJV2c/2dsb2JhbACfLHGlCZkehSQEkQ8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,493,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="126160961" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2010 01:05:23 +0000 Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (starent-networks-nat-64-102-236-4.cisco.com [64.102.236.4]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5S15M6X016735; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:05:23 GMT Received: from exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com ([10.2.4.31]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:04:26 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:05:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A26661212E610@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 Thread-Index: AcsQue9mkzXK6Jo9S6+Z6FKm45nDWgFo02B6 References: <4C1E7E96.6000409@bbn.com> From: "Koodli, Rajeev" To: "Aaron Falk" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2010 01:04:26.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[DABE8640:01CB165D] Cc: mobopts@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobility Optimizations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:05:15 -0000 Hi Aaron, we have a Ready to Publish (from Juergen) and a No Objection (from John = L). So, I think we can move forward. However, I will wait until the June = 30th, as mentioned in the Poll message below. I will request authors to make any editorial revisions based on the = input received until then (e.g., the feedback from John L to mention the = experimental work in the Introduction). Thanks, -Rajeev -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Falk [mailto:falk@bbn.com] Sent: Sun 6/20/2010 1:48 PM To: irsg@ISI.EDU Cc: Koodli, Rajeev; mobopts@irtf.org Subject: Re: [IRSG] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 =20 IRSG- As a reminder, documents require at least one 'Ready to Publish' = response to progress. --aaron On 6/18/10 5:54 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote:=20 =09 Dear IRSG, =09 I have not heard any responses on this Poll yet. Could you please = respond by June 30? =09 Please use one of the poll responses defined below. =09 The possible poll responses are: =09 o 'Ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read and reasonably detailed review =09 o 'Not ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read, reasonably detailed review, and actionable comments. =09 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. =09 o 'Request more time to review' -- a commitment to provide a thorough review in a specified period of time. =09 Document URL: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 =09 Thanks, =09 -Rajeev (Document Shepherd) =09 =09 =09 On 5/28/10 4:04 PM, "Rajeev Koodli" wrote: =09 =09 =09 Dear IRSG, =09 This is a poll requesting your vote on the ID.=20 The IRSG review by Juergen Schoenwaelder resulted in a major revision, = followed by another editorial revision. =09 The tracker URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/27 =09 Please note that the ticket says "reopened doc review". This was due = to my error in submitting the changes incorrectly on the wiki. The = document was not closed earlier on. =09 Appreciate your prompt consideration of the vote (after the holiday = weekend in the US). =09 Regards, =09 -Rajeev =09 =09 =09 ________________________________ _______________________________________________ IRSG mailing list IRSG@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg =09 =09 =09 _______________________________________________ IRSG mailing list IRSG@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg =20 From charles.perkins@earthlink.net Tue Jun 29 13:03:50 2010 Return-Path: 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 5AC433A6948 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:03:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.557, BAYES_50=0.001, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, 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 tmOFwzJHBBc1 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE103A67F9 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=gt08Sl2mA3Km38WKBYYAZLIjdsaJaduc133nT8eE2hmRR1oV3k/Ob6i/XMdi7t5q; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [12.204.153.98] (helo=[10.166.254.153]) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1OTh0q-0002NF-Iy; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:02:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4C2A513D.1030305@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:02:05 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rajeev Koodli References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f527f8d27fe0b6ceec7f2c2ab0d84eab2e9350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 12.204.153.98 Cc: irsg@isi.edu, mobopts@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Mobopts] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobility Optimizations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:03:50 -0000 Hello folks, I think the document needs at least one more revision. Below, please find my first installment of editorial suggestions and clarifications. Some are more important than others. I'll try to finish this review within the next day. Please excuse the delay. - "describes a framework of Media-independent Pre- Authentication (MPA), a new handover optimization mechanism" But, a framework is not a mechanism. Maybe it would be better to just delete "a framework of". - "some of the fast-handover scheme" --> "some of the fast-handover schemes" - Cite RFC 2003 instead of RFC 1853. And, for IPv6 cite RFC 2473. - "An access router is a router that is responsible for the other part of pre-configuration" == I don't have a good suggestion for improvement right now, but "access router" is well-established terminology for something that doesn't necessarily have the stated responsibility. - Figure 2 looks wrong; Core network figure typo?? = The diagram attempts to depict the range of communication for the MN but (a) it's mostly confusing and (b) many other documents successfully depict wireless connectivity without employing ASCII ellipses. - Any interaction with HMIP? - "maybe equipped with different" --> "may be equipped with a different" - "scenarios in details" --> "scenarios in detail" - "not limited to MIP type mobility protocol only and in addition, this scheme" --> "not limited to Mobile IP; this scheme" - "develop an optimization framework" --> This document seems to describe a mechanism, not a framework. But I agree that it's not a protocol specification either way. - "without any underlying constraints or security related assumption." --> "without any underlying constraints or security related assumptions." But this is really debatable, if true at all. There is a constraint of reachability, as a first example. Moreover, there is an assumption that security CAN be pre-established before arrival. It would be easy to identify quite a few other assumptions and constraints. The text should be changed to identify at least one constraint and at least one assumption, without making such absolute claims. - Relationship with HoKey? I guess this shows up in more detail later in the document, but a little more description would be nice at the first reference. - Section 5, first paragraph --- nevertheless even if prediction accuracy is 99%, it is still required that MPA is robust against failures when there are millions of mobile devices. - "In other words, MPA is most" (doesn't parse) --> "In other words, MPA is the most" (unlikely claim) --> "In other words, MPA is more viable as a solution..." - Use cases? = describe use with MIP = describe use with FMIP = describe use with HMIP = describe use with SIP Mobility (maybe this comes later) - "Details of discovery mechanism" --> "Details about discovery mechanisms" - "several policies" --> several factors - "data packet loss should not occur except for the period during the switching procedure in Step 5, and it is the responsibility of link-layer handover to minimize packet loss during this period." = Buffering at the target access router can alleviate this problem. I think this is mentioned later, but it does mean that the quoted sentence needs revision. - Step 2: the same considerations hold here which could indicate preconfiguration with several target networks - Notice also that here MPA isn't quite compatible with the FMIP model, because when the MN initiates the configures nCoA it does not have a tunnel with NAR - Step 4 (secure proactive handover pre-switching phase) "The buffering module at the next access router buffers the packets once the tunnel interface is deleted." Shouldn't NAR be buffering packets even if the tunnel is not explicitly deleted, until the mobile shows up at nCoA? - Figure 4: "TIA" == ?? - "provide an optimized handover" --> "provide optimized handovers" - "rapid subnet and domain handover" --> "rapid movement between subnets and/or domains" - "These issues include ..." This would work a lot better as an itemized list. - "choosing the right network to connect" --> "connecting to the right network" - "in details" --> "in detail" - Section 7.1: "Discovery ... help" --> "Discovery ... helps" - "during a mobile's rapid movement" But: it helps even if the movement is not rapid. - "SLP" Sadly, SLP seems to be mostly irrelevant these days. But, if included, a citation should be indicated. - "There is some proposal" --> "Some proposals" - "When the mobile's movement is imminent, it starts" --> "When movement is imminent, the mobile node starts" - "although a mobile decides" --> "although a mobile selects" - "time-bound tunnels" --> "transient tunnels" - "that could incur" --> "that could occur" - "the mobile is provisioning resources" --> "the mobile is reserving resources" - "big problem. However, it" --> "big problem; it" - "The mobile uses pre-authentication" --> "The mobile uses a pre-authentication" - "MN may hold some" --> "the MN may retain some" - "Two solutions can take care of this problem." --> "There are two solutions to this problem." - "The mobile can take advantage of the simultaneous mobility binding and send multiple binding updates to the corresponding host or HA. Thus, the corresponding host or HA forwards the traffic to multiple IP addresses assigned to the virtual interfaces for a specific period of time." ... Should this document really be recommending such signaling to correspondent nodes during handover? Do you have citations for this? I can see it for the home agent (maybe), but for CNs also? - "wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa" --> expired... Is it still in progress after expiring 4 years ago? - Section 7.3 should also include FMIP PrRtrAdv From RFC 5268: Through the RtSolPr and PrRtAdv messages, the MN also formulates a prospective new CoA (NCoA) when it is still present on the PAR's link. Hence, the latency due to new prefix discovery subsequent to handover is eliminated. <... continuing with more details ...> - "Most commonly a mobile can configure itself statically" Is this really the most common case? I find that surprising. - "169.254.0.0/16" I don't think that Zeroconf addressing techniques help MPA at all -- at least I don't see how to make that work. - "In a wide area networking environment, the mobile uses PPP" This is not true in all wide-area networks. - "Each of these processes takes of the order of few hundred milliseconds to few seconds ..." --> "few" --> "a few" IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration with optimistic DAD can be faster. - "In the following paragraph we describe few ways" --> "In the following sections we describe a few ways" More soon. Regards, Charlie P. On 5/28/2010 4:04 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote: > > Dear IRSG, > > This is a poll requesting your vote on the ID. > The IRSG review by Juergen Schoenwaelder resulted in a major revision, > followed by another editorial revision. > > The tracker URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/27 > > Please note that the ticket says “reopened doc review”. This was due to > my error in submitting the changes incorrectly on the wiki. The document > was not closed earlier on. > > Appreciate your prompt consideration of the vote (after the holiday > weekend in the US). > > Regards, > > -Rajeev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mobopts mailing list > Mobopts@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts From adutta@research.telcordia.com Tue Jun 29 19:43:13 2010 Return-Path: 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 333D83A6867 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:43:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.115 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, 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 W7I42eXFnD2N for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flower.research.telcordia.com (flower.research.telcordia.com [128.96.41.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4741B3A672E for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:43:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (vpntnlA16.research.telcordia.com [128.96.58.16]) by flower.research.telcordia.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o5U2gUQt028178; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C2AAF1B.5040508@research.telcordia.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:42:35 -0400 From: Ashutosh Dutta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Charles E. Perkins" References: <4C2A513D.1030305@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4C2A513D.1030305@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: irsg@isi.edu, Rajeev Koodli , mobopts@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Mobopts] Poll to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-07 X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobility Optimizations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:43:13 -0000 Charles, Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful review comments. We will incorporate these into the next version of the draft along with the comments from others. - Use cases? > = describe use with MIP > = describe use with FMIP > = describe use with HMIP > = describe use with SIP Mobility > (maybe this comes later) With respect to your comments on the use cases above, we had some these use cases listed in version 5 of the draft. However, based on the review comments on version 5 of the draft, we were advised to take those uses cases out to reduce the size of the draft. Instead we were advised to put these uses cases in a separate document or refer to any paper that describes these use cases. Look forward to your next set of reviews on the draft. Regards Ashutosh Dutta Editor of the draft On 6/29/2010 4:02 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > > Hello folks, > > I think the document needs at least one more > revision. Below, please find my first installment > of editorial suggestions and clarifications. > Some are more important than others. > > I'll try to finish this review within the > next day. Please excuse the delay. > > - "describes a framework of Media-independent Pre- > Authentication (MPA), a new handover optimization mechanism" > But, a framework is not a mechanism. Maybe it would be > better to just delete "a framework of". > > - "some of the fast-handover scheme" > --> "some of the fast-handover schemes" > > - Cite RFC 2003 instead of RFC 1853. > And, for IPv6 cite RFC 2473. > > - "An access router is a router that is responsible for the other part > of pre-configuration" > == I don't have a good suggestion for improvement right now, but > "access router" is well-established terminology for something > that doesn't necessarily have the stated responsibility. > > - Figure 2 looks wrong; Core network figure typo?? > = The diagram attempts to depict the range of communication > for the MN but (a) it's mostly confusing and > (b) many other documents successfully depict wireless > connectivity without employing ASCII ellipses. > > - Any interaction with HMIP? > > - "maybe equipped with different" > --> "may be equipped with a different" > > - "scenarios in details" > --> "scenarios in detail" > > - "not limited to MIP type > mobility protocol only and in addition, this scheme" > --> "not limited to Mobile IP; this scheme" > > > > - "develop an optimization framework" > --> This document seems to describe a mechanism, not > a framework. But I agree that it's not a > protocol specification either way. > > - "without any underlying constraints or security related > assumption." > --> "without any underlying constraints or security related > assumptions." > But this is really debatable, if true at all. There is > a constraint of reachability, as a first example. > Moreover, there is an assumption that security CAN be > pre-established before arrival. It would be easy to > identify quite a few other assumptions and constraints. > The text should be changed to identify at least one > constraint and at least one assumption, without > making such absolute claims. > > - Relationship with HoKey? I guess this shows up in > more detail later in the document, but a little more > description would be nice at the first reference. > > - Section 5, first paragraph > --- nevertheless even if prediction accuracy is 99%, it > is still required that MPA is robust against failures > when there are millions of mobile devices. > > - "In other words, MPA is most" (doesn't parse) > --> "In other words, MPA is the most" (unlikely claim) > --> "In other words, MPA is more viable as a solution..." > > - Use cases? > = describe use with MIP > = describe use with FMIP > = describe use with HMIP > = describe use with SIP Mobility > (maybe this comes later) > > - "Details of discovery mechanism" > --> "Details about discovery mechanisms" > > - "several policies" > --> several factors > > - "data packet loss should not occur except for the period during > the switching procedure in Step 5, and it is the responsibility of > link-layer handover to minimize packet loss during this period." > = Buffering at the target access router can alleviate this problem. > I think this is mentioned later, but it does mean that the > quoted sentence needs revision. > > - Step 2: the same considerations hold here > which could indicate preconfiguration > with several target networks > > - Notice also that here MPA isn't quite compatible > with the FMIP model, because when the MN > initiates the configures nCoA it does > not have a tunnel with NAR > > - Step 4 (secure proactive handover pre-switching phase) > "The buffering module at the next access router buffers the packets > once the tunnel interface is deleted." > Shouldn't NAR be buffering packets even if the tunnel is > not explicitly deleted, until the mobile shows up at nCoA? > > - Figure 4: "TIA" == ?? > > - "provide an optimized handover" > --> "provide optimized handovers" > > - "rapid subnet and domain handover" > --> "rapid movement between subnets and/or domains" > > - "These issues include ..." > This would work a lot better as an itemized list. > > - "choosing the right network to connect" > --> "connecting to the right network" > > - "in details" > --> "in detail" > > - Section 7.1: > "Discovery ... help" > --> "Discovery ... helps" > > - "during a mobile's rapid movement" > But: it helps even if the movement is not rapid. > > - "SLP" > Sadly, SLP seems to be mostly irrelevant these days. > But, if included, a citation should be indicated. > > - "There is some proposal" > --> "Some proposals" > > - "When the mobile's movement is imminent, it starts" > --> "When movement is imminent, the mobile node starts" > > - "although a mobile decides" > --> "although a mobile selects" > > - "time-bound tunnels" > --> "transient tunnels" > > - "that could incur" > --> "that could occur" > > - "the mobile is provisioning resources" > --> "the mobile is reserving resources" > > - "big problem. However, it" > --> "big problem; it" > > - "The mobile uses pre-authentication" > --> "The mobile uses a pre-authentication" > > - "MN may hold some" > --> "the MN may retain some" > > - "Two solutions can take care of this problem." > --> "There are two solutions to this problem." > > - "The mobile can take advantage of the simultaneous mobility binding > and send multiple binding updates to the corresponding host or HA. > Thus, the corresponding host or HA forwards the traffic to multiple > IP addresses assigned to the virtual interfaces for a specific period > of time." > ... Should this document really be recommending such signaling > to correspondent nodes during handover? Do you have citations > for this? I can see it for the home agent (maybe), but > for CNs also? > > - "wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa" --> expired... > Is it still in progress after expiring 4 years ago? > > - Section 7.3 should also include FMIP PrRtrAdv > From RFC 5268: > Through the RtSolPr and PrRtAdv messages, the MN also formulates a > prospective new CoA (NCoA) when it is still present on the PAR's > link. Hence, the latency due to new prefix discovery subsequent to > handover is eliminated. <... continuing with more details ...> > > - "Most commonly a mobile can configure itself statically" > Is this really the most common case? I find that surprising. > > - "169.254.0.0/16" > I don't think that Zeroconf addressing techniques help MPA > at all -- at least I don't see how to make that work. > > - "In a wide area networking environment, the mobile uses PPP" > This is not true in all wide-area networks. > > - "Each of these processes takes of the order of few hundred > milliseconds to few seconds ..." > --> "few" --> "a few" > IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration with optimistic > DAD can be faster. > > - "In the following paragraph we describe few ways" > --> "In the following sections we describe a few ways" > > More soon. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > On 5/28/2010 4:04 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote: >> >> Dear IRSG, >> >> This is a poll requesting your vote on the ID. >> The IRSG review by Juergen Schoenwaelder resulted in a major revision, >> followed by another editorial revision. >> >> The tracker URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/27 >> >> Please note that the ticket says “reopened doc review”. This was due to >> my error in submitting the changes incorrectly on the wiki. The document >> was not closed earlier on. >> >> Appreciate your prompt consideration of the vote (after the holiday >> weekend in the US). >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rajeev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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