Subject: Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 11:11:08 +0300

Giaretta,

Thanks. I am fine with all the changes, but I would like to make one 
additional change:

> 4.3. Solutions related to scenario B
>
>    The solution for this scenario depends on the access network being
>    able to determine that a particular mobile node wants to use Mobile
>    IPv6.  This requires a solution at the system level for the access
>    network and is out of scope of this document.

I do not feel this adequately characterizes the difficulty of the task. 
I would like to use this text instead:

4.3. Solutions related to scenario B

   The solution for this scenario depends on the access network being
   able to determine that a particular mobile node wants to use Mobile
   IPv6.  This requires a solution at the system level for the access
   network and may require knowledge of the detailed configuration
   and software capabilities of every mobile node in the system.
   These issues are out of scope of this document.

Can you update the draft, if this change seems reasonable? Nevertheless, 
I have sent the draft forward to IETF Last Call.

Jari

---

From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 09:05:27 -0700

Thanks Jari

The text looks good. I will update the draft today

Gerardo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 1:11 AM
> To: Giaretta, Gerardo
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions
> 
> Giaretta,
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 21:28:35 +0300

Thanks.

Jari

Giaretta, Gerardo kirjoitti:

Thanks Jari

Gerardo

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 1:11 AM
To: Giaretta, Gerardo
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions

Giaretta,

The solution for this scenario depends on the access network being
able to determine that a particular mobile node wants to use

Mobile

Can you update the draft, if this change seems reasonable?
Nevertheless,
I have sent the draft forward to IETF Last Call.

Jari