Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings
draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Magnus Westerlund |
2010-10-11
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2010-10-08
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2010-10-08
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2010-10-07
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2010-10-07
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2010-10-05
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-05.txt |
2010-03-15
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. |
2010-03-15
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-03-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2010-03-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-03-15
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-03-15
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2010-03-15
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-03-12
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jari Arkko |
2010-03-12
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 |
2010-03-11
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Jari Arkko |
2010-03-11
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Magnus Westerlund |
2010-03-11
|
05 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2010-03-11
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza |
2010-03-11
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-03-11
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] 1. This is a discuss question that I do want to have answered before endorsing publication of this document. As it is not … [Ballot discuss] 1. This is a discuss question that I do want to have answered before endorsing publication of this document. As it is not clear what the purpose of these traffic selectors are. Do you need to have a traffic selector for the DCCP Service Code? Considering that you included other special fields I think this needs to be considered. However, that would only separate out the initial connection establishment for DCCP. Not that it may not be unimportant as DCCP do allow for multiple services to share a port. And if one needs to separate traffic for one of these services and then update with more specific filtering rules after having detected the first packet? 2. Section 3.1, (K)Start DS - Differential Services: For the purpose of this specification the DS field is 8 bits long, were the 6 most significant bits indicating the DS field to be matched and the 2 least significant bits MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver. To me it appears to be the wrong specification of how to treat the ECN bits. It is very important that anyone trying to match a DS start value against an actual packet flow must not include the two least significant bits in this octet that are used for ECN. Otherwise you select packets from the flow in a very strange mannor. This also applies to Section 3.2 field M specification |
2010-03-11
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2010-03-11
|
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Section 3.1 The alignment requirement for this sub-option is: 4n if A, B, C, D, E, or F is … [Ballot comment] Section 3.1 The alignment requirement for this sub-option is: 4n if A, B, C, D, E, or F is set 2n if G, H, I, or J is set n if K, L, M, N is set Is there a missing "or" in the last line? If J and K are set, is the alignment 2n or n? What does it mean to have an alignment requirement of 4n? --- I agree with Cullen that reviewing this before draft-ietf-mext-flow- binding seems rash. Isn't it possible that review comments on that other document might require changes of substance here. I suggest that the responsible AD should hold a Discuss until the other document is completed. |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: At the time of this IANA review, this document requests assignments on a registry that does not exist yet. The registry is requested … IANA comments: At the time of this IANA review, this document requests assignments on a registry that does not exist yet. The registry is requested to be created by another document that has not been approved or reviewed by IANA yet. Therefore, the structure and the existence of the registry is unknown. The following statemetn is dependent on the all the required steps to happen before these assignments may be done. Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Traffic Selector Format" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Value Description Reference 1 IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector [RFC-mext-binary-ts-04] 2 IPv6 Binary Traffic Selector [RFC-mext-binary-ts-04] |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-03-10
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2010-03-09
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2010-03-09
|
05 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot comment] Seems like a bad idea to approve this before IESG has even looked at draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding |
2010-03-03
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2010-03-03
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2010-02-26
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-04.txt |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 by Jari Arkko |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | I have reviewed this document. It is in good shape and I have sent it forward to IETF Last Call. There were two small issues, … I have reviewed this document. It is in good shape and I have sent it forward to IETF Last Call. There were two small issues, however, and it would be helpful if you addressed them in a new document revision. Feel free to update the draft during IETF Last Call. > (E)Start SPI - Security Parameter Index > > This field identifies the first 32-bit SPI value, from the range > of SPI values to be matched, on data packets sent from a > corresponding node to the mobile node as seen by the home agent. > This field is defined in [RFC4303]. You should indicate that you are talking about *IPsec* SPIs. There are other kinds, too. > 3.2. IPv6 binary traffic selector > ... > > (M)Start DS - Differential Services > > This field identifies the first differential services value, from > the range of differential services values to be matched, on data > packets sent from a corresponding node to the mobile node as seen > by the home agent. Note that this field is called Type of Service > field in [RFC0791]. [RFC3260] then clarified that the field has > been redefined as 6 bits DS field and 2 bits reserved, later > claimed by Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168]. For > the purpose of this specification the DS field is 8 bits long, > were the 6 most significant bits indicating the DS field to be > matched and the 2 least significant bits MUST be set to 0 by the > sender and ignored by the receiver. The reference should be to 2460, not 0791. And RFC 2460 calls this field Traffic Class. |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Last Call was requested by Jari Arkko |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Jari Arkko |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued by Jari Arkko |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-02-25
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2010-02-25
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2010-02-25
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2010-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Jari Arkko |
2010-02-10
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Marcelo Bagnulo. I have read the document and i think it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been reviewed thoroughly. I don't have any concerns about the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? No further specific review is needed. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The document is important and should be published. I have no concerns with the document. No IPR issues have been raised. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The consensus behind the document is strong. The document has been reviewed and discussed in depth in the WG. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No extreme discontent nor appeal threats have been received. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. Yes No additional formal review is needed for the document. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are split into normative and informative. All normative references are RFCs except one i.e. draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding which is expected to be progressed jointly with this document. No downward references are included. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The IANA section exists and it is consistent with the rest of the document. Proper reservations are defined in the IANA section. The corresponding registries are clearly identified. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No section in formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document defines binary formats for IPv4 and IPv6 traffic selectors to be used in conjunction with flow bindings for Mobile IPv6. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document has been discussed in depth in the WG. The WG feels that this is an important document and should be published. The main controversy was whether there should be one or more traffic selector format defined. This is one format. There is no objection to this format, but rather some people ask for an additional format. I don't see that as a stopper for this document but it is a related issue that as worth mentioning. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? There is at least on ongoing effort for implementing this specification from Qualcom. There were many reviewers of the document, but especial in depth reviews were provided by Dave Craig, Benjamin Lim, Patrick Stupar, and Basavaraj Patil . No MIB review nor media type reviews were needed. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are .' The document shepherd is Marcelo Bagnulo Responsible INT AD is Jari Arkko |
2010-02-10
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2010-02-10
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'The document shepherd is Marcelo Bagnulo (marcelo@it.uc3m.es).' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-09
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-03.txt |
2009-12-16
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-02.txt |
2009-11-09
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-01.txt |
2009-07-30
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-00.txt |