Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-03-31
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-02-10
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-02-05
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2014-02-03
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2013-12-23
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2012-08-22
|
18 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2012-08-16
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-08-16
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2012-08-15
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-08-15
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-08-14
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-08-10
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-08-10
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-08-10
|
18 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from None |
2012-08-10
|
18 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2012-08-10
|
18 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-08-10
|
18 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-08-10
|
18 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::External Party |
2012-08-10
|
18 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-08-01
|
18 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-18.txt |
2012-07-31
|
17 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-17.txt |
2012-07-31
|
16 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-16.txt |
2012-07-30
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Before I put the document forward two things need to be clear: 1) Marco still co-authors or not? There has not been clear answer since … Before I put the document forward two things need to be clear: 1) Marco still co-authors or not? There has not been clear answer since Marco indicated he might not be willing to co-author anymore 2) All authors are now "happy" with the content i.e. when the IETF LC goes out there won't be reopening A22 etc from the authors point of view. Note: I've been letting the authors sort out those issues among themselves for 2 weeks now, but now, I just changed the draft state |
2012-07-30
|
15 | Benoît Claise | State changed to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-07-16
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-07-16
|
15 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my remaining Discuss and Comment positions. I've cleared my Discuss. One remaining non-blocking comment: In the abstract, I suggest s/In … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my remaining Discuss and Comment positions. I've cleared my Discuss. One remaining non-blocking comment: In the abstract, I suggest s/In Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6/In a Proxy Mobile IPv6 deployment/ |
2012-07-16
|
15 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-07-16
|
15 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-15.txt |
2012-07-13
|
14 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot discuss] 1. Thanks for considering my Discuss position and revising the document to show Diameter message flows for cases A11, A12 and A21 from … [Ballot discuss] 1. Thanks for considering my Discuss position and revising the document to show Diameter message flows for cases A11, A12 and A21 from RFC 6279. 2. It appears to me that all of the relevant addressing information is available to the PMIPv6 participants in the mechanisms defined in sections 5 of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr. Therefore, the only required AAA function is authorization of the localized routing request and the references to "LMA" in "AAA(MFV, LMA)" in Figures 2, 3 and 4 can be omitted. 3. The Introduction needs to be updated to conform with the message flows in section 5. In particular, these sentences are not applicable: In these scenarios the information needed to set up a localized routing path (e.g., the addresses of the Mobile Access Gateways to which the MN and CN are respectively attached) is distributed between their respective Local Mobility Anchors. This may complicate the setup and maintenance of localized routing. Therefore, in order to establish a localized routing path between the two Mobile Access Gateways, the Mobile Node's MAG must obtain the address of the Correspondent Node's MAG from the LMA that is managing the Correspondent Node's traffic. |
2012-07-13
|
14 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] These comments are all non-blocking editorial suggestions. 1. I think the last two sentences of the Abstract could be reworded for clarity to … [Ballot comment] These comments are all non-blocking editorial suggestions. 1. I think the last two sentences of the Abstract could be reworded for clarity to convey that this document describes how to use Diameter to authorize the establishment of localized routing; perhaps: It may be desirable to control the establishment of localized routing sessions between two MAGs by requiring that the session be authorized. This document specifies how to implement this authorization using the Diameter protocol. 2. In section 3, for clarity you might mention the case from RFC 6279 described in each of the first three bullet items. 3. In the title of section 4, s/Definitions/Used in this Document/ ? 4. In section 4.4, expand "HAAA" on first reference. 5. Also in section 4.4, for completeness, explanations of the meaning of the INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED set to zero in both cases (one MN-Identifier and two MN-Identifiers) should be included. |
2012-07-13
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Ralph Droms |
2012-07-13
|
14 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-14.txt |
2012-05-15
|
13 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-13.txt |
2012-05-11
|
12 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-12.txt |
2012-05-08
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-05-07
|
11 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot discuss] Updated on May 7 after e-mail discussion of my previous Discuss position. This Discuss position asks about the relationship between this document and … [Ballot discuss] Updated on May 7 after e-mail discussion of my previous Discuss position. This Discuss position asks about the relationship between this document and draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr. No action on the part of the authors is required at this time. 1. From the introduction: This document describes Diameter [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] support for the authorization and discovery of PMIPv6 mobility entities during localized routing. If draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr is the standards track document defining PMIPv6 localized routing, why doesn't draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr simply refer to draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr and show where the Diameter mechanisms it defines fit into the protocol operations defined in sections 4, 5 and 6 of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr? 2. It appears to me that all of the relevant addressing information is available to the PMIPv6 participants in the mechanisms defined in sections 4, 5 and 6 of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr. Therefore, assuming draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr is not defining any new localized routing signaling flows, the only required AAA function is authorization of the localized routing request and section 4.1 can be omitted. |
2012-05-07
|
11 | Ralph Droms | Ballot discuss text updated for Ralph Droms |
2012-05-07
|
11 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot discuss] Updated on May 7 after e-mail discussion of my previous Discuss position. This DISCUSS position asks about the relationship between this document and … [Ballot discuss] Updated on May 7 after e-mail discussion of my previous Discuss position. This DISCUSS position asks about the relationship between this document and draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr. No action on the part of the authors is required at this time. 1. From the introduction: This document describes Diameter [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] support for the authorization and discovery of PMIPv6 mobility entities during localized routing. If draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr is the standards track document defining PMIPv6 localized routing, why doesn't draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr simply refer to draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr and show where the Diameter mechanisms it defines fit into the protocol operations defined in sections 4, 5 and 6 of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr? 2. It appears to me that all of the relevant addressing information is available to the PMIPv6 participants in the mechanisms defined in sections 4, 5 and 6 of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr. Therefore, assuming draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr is not defining any new localized routing signaling flows, the only required AAA function is authorization of the localized routing request and section 4.1 can be omitted. |
2012-05-07
|
11 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] 1. Figures 2 and 3 have a number of confusing typos. 2. (Moot if Figure 3 is modified or omitted.) I don't see … [Ballot comment] 1. Figures 2 and 3 have a number of confusing typos. 2. (Moot if Figure 3 is modified or omitted.) I don't see anything in draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr that allows an LRA to carry the address of an LMA. |
2012-05-07
|
11 | Ralph Droms | Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Ralph Droms |
2012-04-26
|
11 | Glen Zorn | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-11.txt |
2012-04-25
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-03-29
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise from Dan Romascanu |
2012-03-29
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-03-07
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-02
|
10 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2012-02-22
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot writeup text changed |
2012-02-21
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-10.txt |
2012-02-17
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not … [Ballot discuss] The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not been posted yet. |
2012-02-17
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-02-16
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2012-02-16
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
2012-02-16
|
10 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot discuss] I hope this Discuss issue will be easy to resolve. To what extent has this document been reviewed by the netext WG? I … [Ballot discuss] I hope this Discuss issue will be easy to resolve. To what extent has this document been reviewed by the netext WG? I don't see any indication of review other than in the dime WG. Given that this document describes how PMIP6 uses Diameter mechanisms, I would have expected at least a WG last call in netext, and I'm curious about why the draft isn't a product of netext with review by dime. |
2012-02-16
|
10 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2012-02-16
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-16
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-15
|
10 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-15
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] The term "Fully Qualified Domain Name" is undefined (specifically, it's unclear whether internationalized domain names are supported), but it appears that's the fault … |
2012-02-15
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-15
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Curious to hear the response to Stephen's question. |
2012-02-15
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-15
|
10 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-14
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-14
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] The relationship between this and the document specifying "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6" (currently in last call) is not clear. What level … [Ballot discuss] The relationship between this and the document specifying "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6" (currently in last call) is not clear. What level of coordination exists between DIME and NETEXT on these documents? Are the authorization steps described in this document actually part of the protocol being specified by netext? Note that neither document currently references the other. |
2012-02-14
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2012-02-14
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] A question and two comments, that could become discusses, depending on the answer to the question. At present, I'm not sure if there … [Ballot comment] A question and two comments, that could become discusses, depending on the answer to the question. At present, I'm not sure if there is a real issue here or not. There could be a use-case where the MN's MAG is under the MN's control. If there were, or if a MAG were compromised, or a bad-actor, then this protocol could be used to track any participating CN (whose address is known) at the level of the MAG to which it is anchored, but I'm not sure how much of a concern that ought be. Note: I think (but am not sure) that this is different from a "normally" bad MAG in most of pmipv6, in that it could impact on a whole bunch of CN's and not just on the MN anchored to the bad-MAG. So, the question: How fine-grained a location would me knowing your current MAG give me and is such potential tracking by a bad-MAG a concern? 1. If this is a concern maybe it'd be useful to add something like the following to the security considerations: "An authorised MAG could in principle track the movement of any participating CN at the level of the MAG to which they are anchored. If such a MAG were compromised, or under the control of a bad-actor, then such tracking could represent a privacy breach for the set of tracked CN's. In such a case the traffic pattern from the compromised MAG might be notable so monitoring for e.g. excessive queries from MAGs might be worth while." 2. Assuming again that the answer to my question is that it is a concern, ought there be some way in which e.g. MN2 in figure 6 could be part of the authorisation process for this kind of feature? Perhaps one could note that deployments that wanted to be privacy friendly could provide some way to allow for a user to consent to this? And going further of course any such consent might change over time I guess. |
2012-02-14
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-14
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-13
|
10 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-02-13
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not … [Ballot discuss] The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not been posted yet. |
2012-02-13
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2012-02-13
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09.txt |
2012-02-12
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-08.txt |
2012-02-09
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2012-02-09
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2012-02-09
|
10 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2012-01-29
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup. |
2012-01-29
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
2012-01-29
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued |
2012-01-29
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-01-29
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-02-16 |
2012-01-26
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2012-01-26
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07.txt |
2012-01-26
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2012-01-24
|
10 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2012-01-17
|
10 | Amanda Baber | IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the Mobility Capability subregistry of the Authentication, … IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the Mobility Capability subregistry of the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters a new value will be added as follows: Value: [ tbd ] Token: INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands this to be the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. |
2012-01-13
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2012-01-13
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2012-01-12
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2012-01-12
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2012-01-10
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2012-01-10
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document: - 'Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing' as a 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 2012-01-24. 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 In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing. The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node (CN) without involving any LMA. In order to establish a localized routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, two tasks must be accomplished: The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-01-10
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested |
2012-01-10
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2012-01-10
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call text changed |
2012-01-10
|
10 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2012-01-10
|
10 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2012-01-09
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
2011-12-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | (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 … (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? -- Lionel Morand (lionel.morand@orange.com) is the Document Shepherd, Dime co-chair. He has done a review on the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded to IESG 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 discussed in the DIME WG for more than two years, with different reviews of the updated version of the draft. The lastest version is the result of the consensus reached after discussion. However, only one review was done during the WGLC. The shepherd has reviewed the document himself and has no issue with it. Nor the shepherd has issues with the reviews done by others. (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. (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. -- No. (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? -- There is Dime WG consensus behind the document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 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? -- The shepherd has checked the document with the idnits tool and found no critical issues.. The document does not need MIB doctor review. The document does not contain any media and URI types. (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]. -- References are split accordingly. There is no normative reference to documents with unclear status or are in progress. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration 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 [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? -- This document only defines new value in the Mobility Capability registry (created by the RFC 5447) for use with the MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP and requests IANA for value assignment in the existing registry. (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? -- N/A (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 -- This document describes AAA support for the authorization and discovery of Proxy Mobile IPv6 mobility entities (i.e. Local Mobility Anchors and Mobile Access Gateways) during localized routing. For this purpose, the document defines a new value for the MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP originally defined in the RFC 5447 to indicate that Direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to the different MAG without involving any LMA is supported. Working Group Summary --- The document was discussed for more than two years in the WG and the document captures the results of the collaborative WG work. Document Quality --- The document is complete, straightforward, simple and well-written. |
2011-12-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-12-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Lionel Morand (lionel.morand@orange.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
2011-12-13
|
10 | Lionel Morand | Proto Write-up provided by the document shepherd |
2011-12-13
|
10 | Lionel Morand | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2011-12-13
|
10 | Lionel Morand | Changed protocol writeup |
2011-09-16
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | Another 1 week WGLC due non-editorial changes from -05 to -06. WGLC started 16-Sep-2011 WGLC ends 23-Sep-2011 23:59 CET+1 |
2011-09-16
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from In WG Last Call |
2011-09-15
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-06.txt |
2011-06-29
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-05.txt |
2011-05-29
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | No comments or reviews received. The Document stays in WGLC for another two weeks. |
2011-05-29
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2011-05-29
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | started 12th May 2011 |
2011-05-29
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2011-05-05
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt |
2011-03-14
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-03.txt |
2010-11-23
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-02.txt |
2010-05-25
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-01.txt |
2010-02-21
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-00.txt |