As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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:
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.
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.
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
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
This document does not specify any mechanism for security, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML etc. It does not need review from a particular or broader
(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
(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
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
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?
(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.
(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.