Subject: [Mip6] draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 08:05:19 -0400

Hi All,

This is a follow-up message regarding draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt.

I have attached the IESG review comments on this document.  The 
comments marked "discuss" are blocking issues that need to be 
resolved before the document will be approved for publication.  There 
are also non-blocking comments (marked "comment") that should be 
considered by the WG but will not block publication.

There was one "discuss" registered on this document (by Sam Hartman) 
that should probably be discussed and resolved by the WG.

Raj and Gopal, do you know when we should expect an update to the 
document that addresses this concern and fixes the other minor issues 
included in the comments?

Thanks,
Margaret

Sam Hartman:
Discuss:
[2005-03-01] This document fails to explain how the identity option 
interacts with
the IKE identity payloads or really how it interacts at all with the
base MIPV6 spec.

This needs to be explained.  IT may have been the intent that this
option not be used with base MIPV6 but for example only used with the
authentication option and other extensions.  If so, that needs to be
explained and there needs to be at least one such use that is
standards track if this is going to be published as standards track.

In addition, this specification does not make any particular form of
the identity option mandatory to implement.  To create interoperable
implementations, this specification needs to
specify a mandatory to implement form of the option.

Scott Hollenbeck:
Comment:
[2005-02-25] RFC 2119 should be added as a normative reference.  It's 
mentioned in section 2, but not cited.

Russ Housley:
Comment:
[2005-03-01]
   In the Abstract: s/Mobile IP6/Mobile IPv6/

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6