Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The type of RFC being requested is Standards Track. The reason
is that this document is an extension of RFC 4238 which is a 
Standard Track RFC. 

The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header of the current
version of the draft.

(2) 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

   The Mobile Node Identifier Option for MIPv6 [RFC4283] has proved to
   be a popular design tool for providing identifiers for mobile nodes
   during authentication procedures with AAA protocols such as Diameter
   [RFC3588].  To date, only a single type of identifier has been
   specified, namely the MN NAI.  Other types of identifiers are in
   common use, and even referenced in RFC 4283.  This document proposes 
   adding some basic types that are defined in various telecommunications 
   standards, including types for IMSI, P-TMSI, IMEI, and GUTI. 
   Also includes identifiers that are tied to the physical elements of the 
   device (RFID, MAC address etc.) 

Working Group Summary

    There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents.

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?

  This document has been reviewed by some Mobile IP experts in
  the DMM working group and the WG thinks this extension is useful 
  for deployment.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

  The document Shepherd is WG co-chair Dapeng Liu. The Responsible
  Area Director is Suresh Krishnan.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

This document is the extension of RFC4283 and proposes to define more
types of identifiers as the Mobile Node Identifier. It does not have 
other technical changes of RFC4283. The proposed new mobile node
identifiers includes IMSI, P-TMSI, IMEI, GUTI, RFID, MAC and IPv6 address etc.
This version of the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

This document has been discussed in the working group many times and
has been reviewed by several Mobile IP experts.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

This document does not need review from a particular or from broader 
perspective since it does not define mechanism related to security,
operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, internationalization etc.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR


(9) 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?

This document belongs to the maintenance work of Mobile IP in the charter
of DMM working group. There is a clear consensus for the publication of 
this document from those who are working on Mobile IP and there is no 
objections in the working group.

(10) 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 publicly available.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

ID nits check result:
     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document does not define any MIB, media type, URI etc.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(14) 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 plan for their completion?


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure. 


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

Yes. This document will update RFC4283. RFC4283 is listed on the title
page, abstract and discussed in the introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The new mobile node identifier types defined in the document should be 
assigned values from the "Mobile Node Identifier Option Subtypes" registry.
Currently, only value 1 is used for Mobile Node Identifier Option Subtypes.
The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.