Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents:
draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-24
Review updated: 2026-03-02
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
This document has received multiple reviews and explicit support during WG Last Call.
The WG Last Call ran from 16 Oct 2025 to 30 Oct 2025. We received review comments
(mainly clarifications and editorial nits) as well as explicit statements of support,
and no objections were raised. The chairs therefore judge that the document reflects
WG consensus.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No significant controversy was observed. The WG Last Call feedback focused on:
clarifying scope (e.g., user-plane focus vs. control-plane discussion),
tightening terminology, and strengthening/clarifying the Security Considerations
around UDP source-port based slice mapping. These items were addressed in
subsequent revisions, and the current version is considered ready to progress.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
This is an Informational document describing an approach for mapping 3GPP slices
to Transport Network (TN) slices using existing mechanisms (e.g., GTP-U/UDP) and
existing management models (e.g., ACaaS/YANG references). It does not define a
new on-the-wire protocol requiring interoperability testing. No specific
implementations are claimed or listed in the document.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
Yes. The document relates to IETF Network Slicing work (e.g., RFC 9543) and
references TEAS WG drafts for network slice application/realization, and it also
uses terminology and specifications from 3GPP. It additionally references ACaaS
and a YANG data model work item for UDP tunnel support. No formal cross-WG last
call was requested by the DMM chairs; however, review from TEAS/OPS and from
individuals familiar with 3GPP slicing/transport mapping has been helpful and is
welcome.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal expert review is required. The document does not define a new MIB,
media type, or URI. It does not include a YANG module.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
Not applicable. This document does not contain a YANG module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Not applicable. The document does not contain formal-language sections.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes. The document provides useful, focused guidance for mobility-aware transport
network slicing in 5G deployments where slice mapping is performed using the UDP
source port of GTP-U bearers. It is clearly written for its Informational
purpose, includes Security Considerations (including spoofing/attack mitigation
discussion and operational security mechanisms), and has no IANA actions. There
are minor editorial/idnits items (see Q14) that should be cleaned up, but none
are believed to be blocking.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
Security aspects were explicitly reviewed and clarified (e.g., spoofing risk and
need for mechanisms such as ACLs and IPsec / trusted provisioning). No new
protocol elements, registries, MIBs, YANG modules, or media types are defined.
Any remaining issues are editorial in nature.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Informational. The document describes an approach and deployment/architecture
guidance for mapping 3GPP slices to TN slices using existing encapsulations and
management models; it does not specify a new standard protocol or new IANA
registries. The Datatracker metadata indicates Intended Status: Informational.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes. The WG Last Call announcement reminded participants of BCP 79 obligations.
In the WGLC thread, authors explicitly stated that they were not aware of any
IPR beyond what had already been disclosed. The Datatracker indicates that IPR
disclosures exist for this document.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes. The front page lists five authors/editors, which is within the normal
limit. Additional contributors are listed in the “Contributing Authors” section.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The idnits tool reports no errors and no flaws, but does report warnings that
should be addressed prior to publication:
- non-ASCII characters are present in multiple lines;
- one non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 address appears (likely an example and should
be replaced with documentation addresses);
- copyright year mismatch warning;
- minor spacing/formatting oddity;
- an “outdated reference” warning for the referenced Internet-Draft version.
These are considered editorial cleanups.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No. The document’s references are intended to be informative; the document does
not rely on normative dependencies for interoperability.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
Not applicable. There are no normative references.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
Not applicable. There are no normative references.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
Not applicable. There are no normative references.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The IANA Considerations section states that there are no requests for IANA code
point allocations, which is consistent with the document’s content (no new
protocol parameters or registries are defined).
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
None.