Re: [Mobopts] IRSG PollforI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions

["Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[Verizon]" <wesley.m.eddy at nasa.gov>]

All of my comments are non-blocking, and I trust the authors/editors
to just take them as suggestions, and nothing more serious.  Your
logic makes sense to me with the explanations below.


________________________________________
From: mobopts-bounces at irtf.org [mobopts-bounces at irtf.org] On Behalf Of Koodli, Rajeev [rkoodli at starentnetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:22 PM
To: mobopts at irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] IRSG PollforI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions

Hi Wes,

Thanks for your review, and vote. Please some comments inline:

> One substance nit is that the requirements listed in section
> 3 lack any associated "rationale" statements.  Including some
> rationale alongside each requirement is general practice in
> formal requirements management.

This is just a very basic set of requirements (such as use MIP6
framework, do not alter IPsec etc.) set forth for the solutions. We feel
it is fairly self-explanatory, and prefer to refer the reader to a basic
understanding of MIP6.

>
> Another nit is that the document generally phrases the
> problem as being to hide the mapping between "the home
> address and the care-of address".  I believe it should really
> be between "the home address and an in-use care-of address",
> in order to ease later understanding of the applicability to
> monami6, dsmip, or other extensions that the conclusions say
> may be in-scope in the future for clarification.
>

Multiple CoAs may be in-use (in the future), right? If so, the document
is equally applicable.


> The problem of location privacy is very complex, and the
> document does a good job of tracking each concern and clearly
> explaining what appears in each relevant header and option
> field in the stack so that the impact can be readily
> assessed.  I appreciated this.

Thanks.

>
> There are some editorial nits, but I believe they're minor
> enough that the RFC Editor will fix them.

Okay.

Regards,

-Rajeev


>
> ---------------------------
> Wes Eddy
> Network & Systems Architect
> Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
> Office: (216) 433-6682
> ---------------------------
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: mobopts-bounces at irtf.org
> >[mailto:mobopts-bounces at irtf.org] On Behalf Of
> >Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:41 PM
> >To: irsg at ISI.EDU
> >Cc: basavarj.patil at nokia.com; mobopts at irtf.org
> >Subject: Re: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll
> >forI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
> >
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >The deadline for the IRSG poll for I-D:
> >draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions expired on Feb 26th.
> >
> >So far we have received one no objection vote. Would like to
> >hear from a few other people.
> >I am extending the deadline to March 15th. Please respond to
> the poll.
> >
> >Again the choices 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.
> >
> >Rgds,
> >-Basavaraj
> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: mobopts-bounces at irtf.org
> >> > [mailto:mobopts-bounces at irtf.org] On Behalf Of
> >> > Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:25 PM
> >> > To: irsg at isi.edu
> >> > Cc: Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com; mobopts at irtf.org
> >> > Subject: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll for
> >> > I-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > The Mobopts RG I-D:
> >> > draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions has completed IRSG
> >> > review.
> >> > The revised version of the I-D (Rev 12) which incorporates the
> >> > comments is now available at:
> >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-mobopts-locatio
> >> > n-privacy-solu
> >> > tions-12.txt.
> >> >
> >> > Michael Welzl who has performed the IRSG review and the
> Mobopts RG
> >> > have approved the revised I-D to be progressed for publication.
> >> >
> >> > The IRSG review is available from the IRTF tracker web page at:
> >> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/24
> >> >
> >> > Please consider this email as the start of a two week IRSG
> >> poll. The
> >> > deadline for this poll is : Feb 26th, 2009.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > The most relevant rule is that "At least two other IRSG members
> >> > (besides the one sponsoring the document) need to vote 'ready to
> >> > publish' for the document to move forward."
> >> >
> >> > Please review and submit your vote.
> >> >
> >> > -Basavaraj
> >> > Document Shepherd for the I-D
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Mobopts mailing list
> >> > Mobopts at irtf.org
> >> > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
> >> >
> >
> >
> >This email and any attachments may contain legally privileged
> >and/or confidential information of Starent Networks, Corp. and
> >is intended only for the individual or entity named in the
> >message.  The information transmitted may not be used to
> >create or change any contractual obligations of Starent
> >Networks, Corp.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
> >other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this
> >e-mail and its attachments by persons or entities other than
> >the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the
> >intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by
> >replying to this message or by sending an email to
> >postmaster at starentnetworks.com -- and destroy all copies of
> >this message and any attachments without reading or disclosing
> >their contents. Thank you.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Mobopts mailing list
> >Mobopts at irtf.org
> >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Mobopts mailing list
> Mobopts at irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>
_______________________________________________
Mobopts mailing list
Mobopts at irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts