Mobile Access Gateway Configuration Parameters Controlled by the Local Mobility Anchor
draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-05

[Ballot comment]
Substantive:

Security Considerations: Seems like more is needed here. Do you mean to say that none of these parameters add any security considerations that were not there for existing headers? If that's the case, please say so, and why people believe that to be the case.

Editorial:
- Abstract: Can you mention what sort of parameters this contemplates? (At a very high level.)

- 5, 2nd paragraph: "MUST be extended " seens like a statement of fact.
-- "parameters MUST be defined" Doesn't this document define them?

[Ballot comment]
In 3.1.1 and 3.1.2: I assume all 16-bit values are in Network byte order, but it would be good if the document said so.

In response to Mirja's point 4: I think specifying requirements on management interfaces is appropriate using RFC 2119 language. And yes, if an option is sent on the wire, it should be configurable. But I think drawing implementor's attention to this is important.

[Ballot comment]
I had a few minor editorial comments:

"LCMPReregistrationStartTime
  This variable is used to set the minimum time interval **in number of seconds** before the expiry... The default
  value is 10 units, where each unit is 4 seconds."
I understand what it is trying to say, but the "in number of seconds" and "units of 4 seconds" seemed confusing to me (and I immediately wanted to try set it to e.g 43 seconds, just because :-))

"LCMPHeartbeatInterval"
  SHOULD NOT be less than 30 seconds or more than 3600 -- why not? If I choose to DoS myself (or limit my ability to change), isn't that my choice? (No need to change this, just checking to make sure the numbers had discussion behind them).

[Ballot comment]
If text is expanded on the security considerations section from Mirja's comment (thanks for asking that), benefits of the extensions to reduce traffic should also be included.

[Ballot comment]
Minor comments:

1) Please add a reference to rfc5213 right at the beginning of the intro:
s/A large Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) deployment/A large Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] deployment/

2) Section 3.1 says: "The alignment of the sub-option MUST be 4n."
Is that actually (still) important? Is this also the reason for the reserved field in the option or is there an expectation that any flags will be needed in future? Could you remove the reserved field and require 6n then (given you anyway at least need the LCMP Type and Length fields)? No strong need to change anything, just asking...

3) Given that section 4 only has one subsection, I guess the subsection heading for 4.1 can simply be removed.

4)  Are sections 4 and 5 updates to RFC5213? I find the use of normative language at the beginning of each section a little weird, e.g.:
"The LMA MUST allow the following variables to be configured by the system management."
Isn't it implicit that these things have to be configurable to implement this option? I would just not use normative language here...

5) Also section 4: I would recommend to use normative language rather to define the used values itself than what they should be configured to, e.g.
OLD
"It SHOULD NOT be set to less than 30 seconds or more than 3600 seconds."
NEW
"The delay time SHOULD NOT be less than 30 seconds or more than 3600 seconds."
Maybe even use a MUST here?

6) Security consideration: Aren't there security implications if an external node can influence the number of message and therefore the network load?

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Mobility Options subregistry of the Mobile IPv6 parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/

a single, new mobility option will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: LMA Controlled MAG Parameters
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry is to be created called the LMA Controlled MAG Parameters Sub-Option Type Values registry. This registry will be located below the existing LMA Controlled MAG Parameters Sub-Option Type Values subregistry located in the Mobile IPv6 parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/

The new subregistry is managed through Expert Review as defined in RFC 5226. There are initial values in the new registry as follows:
+-------+-----------------------------------------------|---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+---------------|
| 0 | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+---------------|
| 1 | Binding Re-registration Control Sub-Option | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+---------------|
| 2 | Heartbeat Control Sub-Option | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+---------------|

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

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-lma-controlled-mag-params@ietf.org, "Dapeng Liu"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (LMA Controlled MAG Session Parameters) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Distributed Mobility Management
WG (dmm) to consider the following document:
- 'LMA Controlled MAG Session Parameters'
  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 2017-02-24. 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


  This specification defines a new extension, LMA-Controlled-MAG-
  Session-Params to Proxy Mobile IPv6.  This option can be used by the
  local mobility anchor (LMA) in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) signaling
  for notifying the mobile access gateway (MAG) to conform to various
  parameters contained in this extension.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params/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 type of RFC being requested is Standards Track.


(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

  This specification defines a new extension, LMA-Controlled-MAG-
  Session-Params to Proxy Mobile IPv6.  This option can be used by the
  LMA in PMIPv6 signaling for notifying the MAG to conform to various
  parameters contained in this extension.

Working Group Summary

  There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents.


Document Quality

  This document has been reviewed by the PMIPv6 experts in DMM working group.
  There are at least two operators that working on this document and believe this
  mechanism is useful for large scale deployment.

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 mechanism for LMA to centrally configure
MAG session parameters for 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 (~~), 0 warnings (==), 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 requests two actions for IANA in section 6.
It requests the IANA to define a new mobility header option and
related type values for this option.


(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.

The new LMA Controlled MAG Parameters sub-option needs IANA Experts review.
PMIPv6 expert could be selected as 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.

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