Re: AD review of draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6

> Either omit the superfluous
> text about the LMA's check of the transient state or to adopt your
> proposal and refer to
> 4.6.1 for further processing in case the MN's state is not transient.
> I see an advantage in Oliver's proposal that text in 4.6.2 would
> better suit the
> title of the sub-section.
>
>
>>
>>>> *Alignment*:
>>>>> The format of the Transient Binding option is as follows.
>>>>
>>>> Please specify alignment rules, too.
>>>
>>> As the option meets a 32-bit boundary alignment, we don’t
>>> see any additional alignment rule here. But we can add a statement
>>> that the Transient Binding option has no alignment requirement.
>>
>> Traditionally, we've specified the mobility option alignment rules
>> for every new option, even if the specification amounts to "The Pad1
>> option does not have any alignment requirements."
>
> Ok, we'll add text about the alignment of the Transient Binding option.
>
> Thanks,
> marco
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> *References*:
>>>>
>>>>> [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
>>>>> "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861
>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861>,
>>>>> September 2007.
>>>>>
>>>>> [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
>>>>> Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862
>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862>, September 2007.
>>>> In my opinion, these references do not need to be normative. They
>>>> form a part of the rationale and explanation of the environment,
>>>> but they are not required reading for implementing this in proxy
>>>> MIP nodes.
>>>
>>>
>>> We agree and will move these RFCs to informative references.
>>
>> OK
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Editorial*:
>>>>
>>>
>>> All your editorial comments are valid and very much appreciated.
>>> We’ll expand all abbreviation on first use and will shorten and clarify
>>> the paragraph you pointed to.
>> Good, thanks.
>>
>> Jari
>>
>
>