Hi, both Jayshree and WG:
I'm forwarding a Gen-ART review summary of 3012bis, with a link to the full
summary. This is pretty serious, and I think both the Editor and the working
group needs to consider once more whether this document is ready, or whether
a rather more serious re-working is needed.
Regards,
Henrik
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: COMMENT: draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:21:55 -0500
From: Brian Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
To: iesg at ietf.org
CC: mccap at lucent.com, henrik at levkowetz.com
Comment:
The Gen-ART review from Elwyn Davies cuts very deep so like Sam, I will abstain.
Summary of the review:
...this draft needs considerably more work to be a useful PS. There has to be some doubt, given the use of CHAP, whether it is *worth* devoting too much effort to it, but that is a decision for others. The overall impression that comes over from the document is a hurried attempt to patch up a crumbling edifice that maybe ought to be demolished and rebuilt differently. The convoluted logic described and the fact that it is extensions to, combinations of or realignments of about three other protocols makes it extremely difficult to see whether the whole thing could be correct - the additions since RFC3012 appear to be attempts to fix something that was pretty broken!
Full review (actually of the previous version, but still applicable);
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-04-davies.txt
