Quality-of-Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-12

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    netext mailing list <netext@ietf.org>,
    netext chair <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-12.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
  (draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-12.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary:

This specification defines a new mobility option, the Quality of
Service (QoS) option, for Proxy Mobile IPv6. This option can be used
by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway for
negotiating Quality of Service parameters for a mobile node's IP
flows. The negotiated QoS parameters can be used for QoS policing
and marking of packets to enforce QoS differentiation on the path
between the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway.
Furthermore, making QoS parameters available on the mobile access
gateway enables mapping of these parameters to QoS rules that are
specific to the access technology and allows those rules to be
enforced on the access network using access technology specific
approaches.

Working Group Summary:

The WG supports this I-D as it is relevant in the context of the
protocols applicability within 3GPP standards. There is strong support
to standardize this work. It has been reviewed multiple times by
several experts.

Document Quality:

There is at least one known implementation of the protocol. There is
good support for the specification and an interest in utilizing the
protocol as a feature by various vendors.
All reviewers of the I-D have been acknowledged in the document.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Brian Haberman

RFC Editor Note