Home Network Prefix Renumbering in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-07

[Ballot comment]

Section 7 says: "The protection of UPN and UPA
messages in this document follows [RFC5213] and
[RFC7077]." I'm not clear if "follows" means the same
as "MUST be protected using end-to-end security
association(s) offering integrity and data origin
authentication" (RFC5213, section 4). I think it ought
really, as otherwise this could subvert the security
of PMIPv6. So wouldn't it make sense to be explicit
that these new messages have the same MUST
requirements as binding updates. Doing that by
repeating the quoted text from 5213 would be a fine
way to do that, but there may be better options.

The above was a discuss ballot. The AD and an
author agreed with the interpretation above that
that adding a clarification might be good so I've
cleared the discuss assuming they'll do that
nicely. (Thanks).

OLD COMMENT below

- It might also be worth saying in section 7 that to
provision a new HNP someone has to have setup all the
IPsec stuff for that.

[Ballot comment]
A couple of editorial comments:

- Abstract: The last sentence is convoluted; please consider simplifying it.

-3, first paragraph: "... the LMA has to notify a
  new HNP to a MAG...": Does this mean the same as "LMA has to notify a MAG about a new HNP"? If so,  I think the text as written has the wrong direct object for "notify".

[Ballot comment]
This document has a 2119 boilerplate but doesn't use normative language. I think it would actually be good to use normative language!

Minor questions:
- secion 4: "This temporary binding should only be used for the downwards packet transmission"
  By downward you mean 'to the MN', right?
  Why is this? Does that actually help in any scenario?

- I'm not sure why section 3 is titled 'PMIPv6 Extensions'...?

[Ballot comment]
In the abstract, I would suggest

s/as an update of the PMIPv6 specification./as an optional extension of the PMIPv6 specification./

to be crystal clear that this is not a formal update.

[Ballot discuss]

I think this should be an easy one to resolve:

Section 7 says: "The protection of UPN and UPA
messages in this document follows [RFC5213] and
[RFC7077]." I'm not clear if "follows" means the same
as "MUST be protected using end-to-end security
association(s) offering integrity and data origin
authentication" (RFC5213, section 4). I think it ought
really, as otherwise this could subvert the security
of PMIPv6. So wouldn't it make sense to be explicit
that these new messages have the same MUST
requirements as binding updates. Doing that by
repeating the quoted text from 5213 would be a fine
way to do that, but there may be better options.

[Ballot comment]

- It might also be worth saying in section 7 that to
provision a new HNP someone has to have setup all the
IPsec stuff for that.

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com, dmm-chairs@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum@ietf.org, "Dapeng Liu"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Distributed Mobility Management
WG (dmm) to consider the following document:
- 'Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6'
  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 2017-02-10. 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 the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification, a Mobile Node
  (MN) is assigned with a Home Network Prefix (HNP) during its initial
  attachment and the MN configures its Home Address (HoA) with the HNP.
  During the movement of the MN, the HNP remains unchanged to keep
  ongoing communications associated with the HoA.  However, the current
  PMIPv6 specification does not specify related operations when an HNP
  renumbering is happened.  In this document, a solution to support the
  HNP renumbering is proposed, as an update of the PMIPv6
  specification.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum/ballot/


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

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 intended status of this document is Standards Track.
This is an extension of existing Standard Track RFC5213.


(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

  Network managers currently prefer Provider Independent (PI)
  addressing for IPv6 to attempt to minimize the need for future
  possible renumbering.  However, a widespread use of PI addresses may
  cause Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) scaling problems.  It is thus
  desirable to develop tools and practices that make IPv6 renumbering a
  simpler process to reduce demand for IPv6 PI space [RFC6879]. This
  document solves the HNP renumbering problem when the
  HNP in PMIPv6 [RFC5213] is not the type of PI.


Working Group Summary

  This document belongs to the PMIPv6 maintenance work.
  It has been discussed in the working group and reviewed
  by several PMIPv6 experts.

Document Quality

 
  During the discussion of this document in the working group,
  related vendors believed that Home Network Prefix renumbering
  for PMIPv6 is needed. This document has been reviewed by
  the PMIPv6 experts in DMM working group.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  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 specifies the renumbering mechanism of PMIPv6.
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 reviewed by several PMIPv6 experts in DMM
working group. This is no concerns about the depth and breadth
of the reviews.



(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 specify any mechanism for security, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML etc. It does not need review from a particular or broader
perspective.


(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.

N/A

(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.

Yes.

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

No.

(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. 

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.


Result of ID nits check:
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).



(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 specify anything related to MIB, media type, URI type.


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

Yes.

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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.

No.


(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).

This document does not specify any IANA considerations.

(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.

This document does not specify any  IANA 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.

This document does not specify anything related to XML, BNF, MIB etc.