Skip to main content

Hierarchical IPv4 Framework
draft-frejborg-hipv4-14

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
14 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22
14 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2011-05-02
14 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-04-26
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-04-26
14 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2011-04-26
14 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-04-26
14 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text changed
2011-04-26
14 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-04-26
14 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-26
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-04-26
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-04-26
14 Ralph Droms Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-26
14 Ralph Droms Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-22
14 Ralph Droms Ballot writeup text changed
2011-04-20
14 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-04-19
14 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-04-19
14 Amanda Baber No IANA actions.
2011-04-19
14 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-14.txt
2011-04-14
14 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-04-14
14 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation.
2011-04-14
14 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-04-14
14 Pete Resnick
[Ballot discuss]
Holding a DISCUSS for IANA: The document refers to having to DNS extension. IANA would like to know whether that indicates an IANA …
[Ballot discuss]
Holding a DISCUSS for IANA: The document refers to having to DNS extension. IANA would like to know whether that indicates an IANA action might be needed.
2011-04-14
14 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Discuss from No Objection
2011-04-14
14 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-14
14 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document as Experimental.

I note that RFC 3032 is given as the eference for …
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document as Experimental.

I note that RFC 3032 is given as the eference for [MPLS]. I think that RFC 3031 is a more central anchor for the MPLS architecture.
2011-04-14
14 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-14
14 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
I support the publication of this document as an IRTF RFC.

However, it has been our policy before that all submissions around the …
[Ballot discuss]
I support the publication of this document as an IRTF RFC.

However, it has been our policy before that all submissions around the topic of routing and addressing scalability need to clearly document their downsides, even if they come from the independent or other streams. This is to set a level playing field for all submissions.

In the case of this document, I wonder if Section 10 should better highlight a couple of additional issues:

1. That this model require a modification of a large number of end hosts
2. That as far as I can tell, the document does not describe an incremental deployment model that would explain what happens when one part of the Internet supports the new model but others do not

There may also be other issues, e.g., I'm not an expert in geographical addressing but my understanding was that it has issues. Maybe those should be highlighted.

Finally, I think the "carry IP addresses" issue from Section 10.3 is actually a more general referral problem. What about applications that store the client's IP address to contact/compare it later? Its not just an issue of protocols carrying addresses.
2011-04-14
14 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-04-14
14 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, and I plan to change it into a No-Objection or an Abstain after the telechat. I would like to …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, and I plan to change it into a No-Objection or an Abstain after the telechat. I would like to make sure that we are all OK to approve this document as Experimental and that no IESG note is required. My question marks relate to the nature of the experiment and the transition plans that are discussed in the document in the conditions that IPv4 address depletion is a reality today. Another issue is that some of the text in Appendix C makes the case that a transition to hipv4 is to be preferred to the current IPv4 to IPv6 transition plans - are we OK with the 'green' and economical arguments brought up here?
2011-04-14
14 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, and I plan to change it into a No-Objection or an Abstain after the telechat. I would like to …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, and I plan to change it into a No-Objection or an Abstain after the telechat. I would like to make sure that we are all OK to approve this document as Experimental and that no IESG note is required. My question marks relate to the nature of the experiment and the transition plans that discussed in the document in the conditions that IPv4 address depletion is a reality today. Another issue is that some of the text in Appendix makes the case that a transition to hipv4 is to be preferred to the current IPv4 to IPv6 transition plans - are we OK with the 'green' and economical arguments brought up here?
2011-04-14
14 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-04-14
14 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]
I thought the IRTF process called for something about document status to be in the abstract as well?
2011-04-14
14 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-13
14 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
As an IRTF submission, I'm only evaluating on the basis of conflict with IETF stuff. To that end, though it could be argued …
[Ballot comment]
As an IRTF submission, I'm only evaluating on the basis of conflict with IETF stuff. To that end, though it could be argued that using "hIPv4" as an abbreviation of the protocol name "could potentially disrupt the IETF work done in" HIP, I don't feel strongly enough to say that we should file an objection with the RFC Editor just because of that.

This work is certainly related to work going on in LISP, but I don't think it's conflicting.
2011-04-13
14 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-13
14 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-13
14 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
14 Wesley Eddy
[Ballot comment]
The Security Considerations section appears to be a bit light, and I would suggest improving this section.

I have no objections to publishing …
[Ballot comment]
The Security Considerations section appears to be a bit light, and I would suggest improving this section.

I have no objections to publishing this, but here are some editorial nits:

page 5, 3rd to last paragraph: should "three areas: area" be "three types of areas: stub area"?

should note during first occurrence of "LSR" that this does *not* refer to an MPLS Label Switching Router, since this is overloading an already well-known acronym

page 10 - "in Internet" -> "in the Internet"

page 11 - how can the ALOC prefix (which is a prefix, not an address) be assigned as the locator for the LSRs or announced as an anycast *address* as it says on this page?  The wording choices might be clarified here.

page 12 - "since the destination address is the remote ALOC prefix" this text seems to have the same address/prefix confusion as above; should this really say "is within the remote ALOC prefix?"  If the bare prefix itself is used as an address, doesn't this severely limit the number of ALOCs available?
2011-04-12
14 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
14 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-04-12
14 Ralph Droms State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation.
2011-04-12
14 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2011-04-12
14 Ralph Droms Ballot has been issued
2011-04-12
14 Ralph Droms Created "Approve" ballot
2011-04-12
14 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-04-12
14 (System) Last call text was added
2011-04-12
14 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-04-12
14 Ralph Droms State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-04-08
14 Russ Housley Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Russ Housley
2011-03-24
14 Cindy Morgan
Subject: Request for RFC5742 review of draft-frejborg-hipv4-13
From: Aaron Falk

This is a request for the IESG to perform a RFC5742 review of draft-frejborg-hipv4-13 [1] …
Subject: Request for RFC5742 review of draft-frejborg-hipv4-13
From: Aaron Falk

This is a request for the IESG to perform a RFC5742 review of draft-frejborg-hipv4-13 [1] to be published an an Experimental IRTF RFC. The document has been approved for publication by the IRSG. See [2] for details on prior reviews. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Tony Li .

--aaron
IRTF Chair

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-frejborg-hipv4
[2] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/43
2011-03-24
14 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-03-24
14 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-04-14
2011-03-24
14 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'IRSG submission. Tony Li (tony.li@tony.li) is the document shepherd.' added
2011-03-13
13 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-13.txt
2011-02-07
12 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-12.txt
2011-02-06
11 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-11.txt
2010-10-07
10 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-10.txt
2010-09-16
09 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-09.txt
2010-08-26
08 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-08.txt
2010-07-02
07 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-07.txt
2010-03-23
06 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-06.txt
2010-02-12
05 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-05.txt
2009-11-24
04 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-04.txt
2009-10-20
03 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-03.txt
2009-05-28
02 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-02.txt
2009-03-05
01 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-01.txt
2009-02-24
00 (System) New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-00.txt