Subject: [Mipshop] AD review of mipshop-fh80216e

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:44:31 +0200

I have done my AD review on this document. I have the following comments:

1. The document needs to be clearer about when FMIP procedures are
needed upon link change, and when not. Section 5.2, for instance, says
"On receiving the LHI, the IP layer sends an FBU to the PAR." But this
appears to be necessary only if the FMIP operations (proxy router
solications) indicate that a router and subnet change is implied by the
access point change. Same in Section 5.3.

2. The spec needs to document how it deals with the issues from RFC 4907
Section 2.

3. Has there been review in 802.16, 802.21, Wimax Forum, or 16ng WGs?

4. Can you confirm that 802.21 LD is given even for neighboring, scanned
links? I.e., even if you still are on your current link, you will an LD
if another cell is heard nearby?

5. What is "secure IP address management in 802.16e", mentioned in the
security considerations? I am surprised to hear of this, as no mention
of it has appeared in 16ng WG work.

I am expecting a revised draft and answers to the questions above.

Jari

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:21:19 -0800

> 3. Has there been review in 802.16, 802.21, Wimax Forum, or 16ng WGs?

The document was reviewed in 16ng. It then went through a combined
16ng and MIPSHOP WG last call. This was indicated in the Document
Shepherding writeup. :)

Vijay

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:25:44 +0200

Vijay Devarapalli kirjoitti:
> 16ng and MIPSHOP WG last call.

Good. I think this will be enough, but I would like to see a review
request to 802.16/WMF/802.21 forwarded when this goes to last call.

> This was indicated in the Document
> Shepherding writeup. :)

Ah. Very good. Sorry, I missed that.

Jari