On-Demand Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-18

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my discuss. Sorry for the long delay on my side!

Here is my old  comment still:

Please also note that address mobility is actually more a transport question that an application layer question. For TCP session-lasting addresses will always be more efficient if available while an application using TCP will always need to cover the case where an TCP connection fails or is interrupted and therefore the application needs to reconnect. However, in contrast QUIC supports IP address mobility and will survive changing IP addresses. I think that should be also clarified in the draft and it should be double-check if the use of the word application is always correct or if it should be replaced sometimes with e.g. transport system or a more general term.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alper Yegin , Seil Jeon , Jungshin Park , dmm-chairs@ietf.org, Danny Moses , Kisuk Kweon , Jinsung Lee

[Ballot comment]
Please address the Gen-ART review comments.

= Section 3.2 =

"A Fixed IP address is an address with a guarantee to be valid for a
  very long time"

This seems vague. What is a very long time?

= Section 5.1 =

"Applications using the new On-Demand functionality MUST be aware that
  they may be executed in legacy environments that do not support it."

This should not be a normative recommendation.

= Section 7 =

This section needs to discuss the privacy and security implications of the different address types (see, e.g., RFC 7721 Sections 3 and 4).

[Ballot discuss]
(1) There are a bunch of places in this document that place normative requirements on "the IP stack" or "IP stacks." This seems too broad to me -- aren't these meant to apply to IP stacks that implement the new API? It seems like RFC 5014 was more careful in its use of normative language and I think that care is warranted here as well.

(2) RFC 7721 defines a bunch of address types that are somewhat overlapping with the definitions here. RFC 4941 and RFC 8064 provide recommendations for configuration of different address types. How do the address types and recommendations in this document intersect with the address types and recommendations in those documents?

[Ballot comment]
= Section 3.2 =

"A Fixed IP address is an address with a guarantee to be valid for a
  very long time"

This seems vague. What is a very long time?

= Section 5.1 =

"Applications using the new On-Demand functionality MUST be aware that
  they may be executed in legacy environments that do not support it."

This should not be a normative recommendation.

= Section 7 =

This section needs to discuss the privacy and security implications of the different address types (see, e.g., RFC 7721 Sections 3 and 4).

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document.

I don't mind presence of socket API, but I would like to point out that it is not very friendly to platforms (e.g. Windows) where sockfd type is not "int".

[Ballot comment]
Nits:

Don't put references in the Abstract: s/[RFC7333]/RFC7333

s/new concep/new concept

In §5: s/Backwards compatibility support is REQUIRED/Backwards compatibility support is required    In this case, you're not specifying anything, just stating a fact, so Normative language is not needed.

[Ballot discuss]
As mentioned by the TSV-ART review (Thanks Magnus!) and confirmed by Danny Moses in his response to the TSV-ART review ("There were several discussions as to whether this draft should specify Socket extensions or provide guidelines for an API provided by the network stack to applications. The decision, eventually, was that since IETF does not specify the Socket API, we should not specify Socket extensions, but rather, provide guidelines for such functionality. "), I don't think this document should specify an socket API.

Further I don't necessarily think the API approach taken is correct. First section 3.3. says:

  "IP address type selection is made on a per-socket granularity.
  Different parts of the same application may have different needs.
  For example, the control-plane of an application may require a Fixed
  IP Address in order to stay reachable, whereas the data-plane of the
  same application may be satisfied with a Session-lasting IP Address."

However, Fixed IP Address (as defined in section 3.2) cannot be configured on a per socket-basis as the application needs the same IP address for multiple socket connections.

Further, section 3.5. says.

"Extending this further by adding more flags does not work when a
  request for an address of a certain type results in requiring the IP
  stack to wait for the network to provide the desired source IP prefix
  and hence causing the setsockopt() call to block until the prefix is
  allocated (or an error indication from the network is received)."

However, later on section 6.1. it says:

  "setsc() MAY block the invoking thread if it triggers the TCP/IP stack
  to request a new IP prefix from the network to construct the desired
  source IP address."

Therefore, I really don't understand why a new flag in setsockopt() can not be used.

I propose to remove all socket API specifications from this document and only discuss requirements  (as indicated by Danny). That would basically mean to remove sections 3.5, 4.1, and 6.

[Ballot comment]
Please also note that address mobility is actually more a transport question that an application layer question. For TCP session-lasting addresses will always be more efficient if available while an application using TCP will always need to cover the case where an TCP connection fails or is interrupted and therefore the application needs to reconnect. However, in contrast QUIC supports IP address mobility and will survive changing IP addresses. I think that should be also clarified in the draft and it should be double-check if the use of the word application is always correct or if it should be replaced sometimes with e.g. transport system or a more general term.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about the IANA Considerations section of this document.

Section 6.1 of the current document defines setsc() which has a parameter addressType. The current draft defines addressType as a 3-bit field where values 0 through 4 are defined and values 5 through 7 are reserved. setsc() also returns one of three values. Should either the addressType parameter or the returned values from setsc() be in an IANA registry? If not, what are the authors' intentions for future definitions of addressType values and returned values?

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-01-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Sri Gundavelli , sgundave@cisco.com, draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility@ietf.org, dmm-chairs@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org, Dapeng Liu , suresh@kaloom.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (On Demand Mobility Management) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Distributed Mobility Management WG
(dmm) to consider the following document: - 'On Demand Mobility Management'
  as Informational RFC

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 2019-01-16. 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


  Applications differ with respect to whether they need session
  continuity and/or IP address reachability.  The network providing the
  same type of service to any mobile host and any application running
  on the host yields inefficiencies.  This document describes a
  solution for taking the application needs into account by selectively
  providing session continuity and IP address reachability on a per-
  socket basis.




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

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

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2309/

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 Informational.
Yes, title page reflects the document status as "informational".


(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 document describes a mechanism for taking the application needs into account in selectively
  providing IP session continuity and IP address reachability on a per-socket basis.


Working Group Summary


  There were some debates in the working group regarding the
  defined types of IP Addresses defined in this document, but those are now resolved.

Document Quality

  This document has been discussed for a long time  in the working group and has passed WGLC last call multiple times. We believe the document is a good shape.


Personnel

  The document Shepherd is WG co-chair Sri Gundavelli. 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.

The document was reviewed by many expert reviewers. These reviewers have read the document and have provided their expert comments.
This document in my view is ready for publication. This document is also being discussed in 3GPP SA2 group.




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

No. We baked this for a long time :-)


(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.

None.


(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.

Yes. There is an IPR disclosure related to this document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility

The WG noted that the document has an IPR on it, and the WG still has
agreed to progress the document. No one demanded removing the document.



(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? 

There is a 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:
 
> No issues found here.
>    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 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).

There is no IANA considerations for this 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.


There is no IANA considerations for this document.


(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.

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 Informational.
Yes, title page reflects the document status as "informational".


(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 document describes a mechanism for taking the application needs into account in selectively
  providing IP session continuity and IP address reachability on a per-socket basis.


Working Group Summary


  There were some debates in the working group regarding the
  defined types of IP Addresses defined in this document, but those are now resolved.

Document Quality

  This document has been discussed for a long time  in the working group and has passed WGLC last call multiple times. We believe the document is a good shape.


Personnel

  The document Shepherd is WG co-chair Sri Gundavelli. 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.

The document was reviewed by many expert reviewers. These reviewers have read the document and have provided their expert comments.
This document in my view is ready for publication. This document is also being discussed in 3GPP SA2 group.




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

No. We baked this for a long time :-)


(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.

None.


(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.

Yes. There is an IPR disclosure related to this document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility

The WG noted that the document has an IPR on it, and the WG still has
agreed to progress the document. No one demanded removing the document.



(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? 

There is a 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:
 
> No issues found here.
>    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 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).

There is no IANA considerations for this 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.


There is no IANA considerations for this document.


(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.

At the dmm working group meeting today the sense of the room was to consider the addition of the content of draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-05 into this draft. Pending confirmation of this decision on the mailing list, I am moving this out of Publication Requested.

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 Informational.


(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 document describes a
  solution for taking the application needs into account in selectively
  providing IP session continuity and IP address reachability on a per-
  socket basis.


Working Group Summary


  There was some debate in the working group regarding the
  correctness of the defined types of IP Addresses
  in this document. The WG decided to move forward for this
  document.

Document Quality

  This document has been discussed for a long time
  in the working group and have been improved many
  times to address the comments received during the
  working group discussion.

Personnel

  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 defines Fixed IP Address, Session-lasting IP Address,
Non-persistent IP Address and the mechanism to convey the IP address
selection to meet different IP mobility requirements. 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 many times in the working group and
has been improved to address the comments received during the discussion.
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.


Since the intend status of this document is informational, there are
no concerns to publish it as reference mechanisms for the
developers.


(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.

Yes. There is an IPR disclosure related to this document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility

The WG noted that the document has an IPR on it, and the WG still has
agreed to progress the document. No one demanded removing the document.



(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? 

There is a 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 (~~), 2 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 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).

There is no IANA considerations for this 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.


There is no IANA considerations for this document.


(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.

This document should really be Informational.
* normative ref to informational rfc5014
* at the end this is not a protocol specification but an API guideline