Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18

[Ballot comment]
The shepherd write-up says:

  "Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No. The relevance of flow mobility at the present time is
  suspect. While there is some adoption of Proxy Mobile IPv6 by
  the industry, there is no real demand for flow based mobility."

I wondered why this is then being frozen into an RFC? That can
be the right thing to do sometimes, but the above does make it
seem questionable. So I'm asking:-) And did you consider if an
experimental RFC would send the right signal?

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the Handoff Indicator Option type values subregistry of the Mobile IPv6 parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/

a new handoff indicator will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Attachment over a new interface sharing prefixes
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the Update Notification Reasons Registry also in the Mobile IPv6 parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/

a new notification reason will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: FLOW-MOBILITY
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As in the case of the first assignment, this is a registry using Specification Required for management.

Third, in the Status Codes subregistry of the Mobile IPv6 parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/

two new Status Codes will be registered in the parameter range above value 120 as follows:

Value: { TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Reason unspecified
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: { TBD-at-registration ]
Description: MN not attached
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> the Status Code "Reason Unspecified" already appears in this registry as value 128. Is the registration requested in the current document intended to be a different value from the existing registration 128. If it is, could the description be differentiated between the new registration and the existing value 128?

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

IANA will not be able to complete the registry actions for this document until these issues have been resolved.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: netext@ietf.org, brian@innovationslab.net, netext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@ietf.org, bpatil1+ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network-Based Mobility
Extensions WG (netext) to consider the following document:
- 'Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy
  Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces.  This document
  describes extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are
  required to support network based flow mobility over multiple
  physical interfaces.

  This document updates RFC 5213.  The extensions described in this
  document consist of the operations performed by the local mobility
  anchor and the mobile access gateway to manage the prefixes assigned
  to the different interfaces of the mobile node, as well as how the
  forwarding policies are handled by the network to ensure consistent
  flow mobility management.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.