Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Extension for Mobile IPv4
draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2011-04-06
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. |
2011-03-30
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2011-03-29
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2011-03-28
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2011-03-28
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-05.txt |
2011-03-28
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2011-03-24
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-03-21
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-03-21
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-03-21
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-03-21
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-03-21
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-03-21
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-03-17
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-03-17
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-03-17
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-17
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-17
|
05 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-16
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Something is wrong here: > > 4.2. Home Agent Requirements for GRE Tunneling Support > [RFC3344] … [Ballot comment] Something is wrong here: > > 4.2. Home Agent Requirements for GRE Tunneling Support > [RFC3344] > The reference is misplaced. I think it belongs in the first sentence of the section. Please remove the extra spaces: > > GRE encapsulation, it MUST send an RRP with code 'Requested > Encapsulati on Unavailable (139)' [RFC3024] . |
2011-03-16
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-16
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-16
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this documen, but there are a few small points that might be addressed to improve … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this documen, but there are a few small points that might be addressed to improve it. --- I don't think you need RFC 2119 notation in the Abstract. --- A number of acronyms are used without expansion --- Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 seem a bit confused on the use of RFC 2119 language and the cases where behavior is already defined in other specifications. Could you spend a little time to clear this up and make clear what new behavior this document is defining. |
2011-03-16
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-16
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] It would be nice to expand "GRE" on first use to "Generic Routing Encapsulation" and also provide a reference to RFC 2784. |
2011-03-16
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-15
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-15
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-15
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] 1) Nits points out: - ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) 2) If you end up doing another … [Ballot comment] 1) Nits points out: - ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) 2) If you end up doing another revision, please: a) expand GRE on 1st use in Abstract and Introduction. b) add a period to the end of the 1st paragraph in Section 7. Otherwise, please consider these during AUTH48 (if the RFC editor doesn't catch them). |
2011-03-15
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] 1) Nits points out: - ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) 2) If you end up doing another … [Ballot comment] 1) Nits points out: - ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) 2) If you end up doing another revision, please: a) expand GRE on 1st use in Abstract and Introduction. b) add a period to the end of the 1st paragraph in Section 7. Otherwise, please consider these during AUTH48 (if the RFC editor doesn't catch it). |
2011-03-15
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-15
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-03-14
|
05 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-03-08
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] "In the absence of this key identifier, the data streams cannot be distinguished from each other, a significant drawback when using IP-in-IP tunneling." … [Ballot comment] "In the absence of this key identifier, the data streams cannot be distinguished from each other, a significant drawback when using IP-in-IP tunneling." Well understated. FA, HA, RRP, MN, RRQ, RRP used without first expansion. It would be useful to the reader if the 'G' bit was called by it's proper name (GRE Encapsulation) on first used, same for the 'D' bit. 'The FA may include a GRE key of value zero in the GRE Key Extension to signal that the HA assign GRE keys in both directions.' - Minor grammar problem. 'Encapsulati on Unavailable' - - Minor grammar problem. |
2011-03-08
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-03-07
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA has a question about the IANA Actions related to this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, a single IANA Action is … IANA has a question about the IANA Actions related to this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, a single IANA Action is required. The GRE Key Extension is understood to be a Mobile IP extension and a Type value for this Extension should be registered from the non-skippable range (0-127). IANA Question --> which of the MobileIPv6 Extension registries should this type value be added to? IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. |
2011-03-04
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2011-03-04
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (GRE Key Extension for Mobile IPv4) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Mobility for IPv4 WG (mip4) to consider the following document: - 'GRE Key Extension for Mobile IPv4' as a 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 2011-03-14. 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. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension/ |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-03-17 |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Last Call was requested |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Last Call text changed |
2011-02-28
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-02-28
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-02-28
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. I have reviewed this draft. The document is basically in good shape, was easy to read, and … State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. I have reviewed this draft. The document is basically in good shape, was easy to read, and I have sent it forward to IETF Last Call and an eventual IESG review (currently scheduled for March 17th). I did have two comments, however, and I hope that the authors can address them even if the last call period is starting: > The HA SHOULD accept the RRQ and send a RRP with code 'Accepted (0)'. > The HA MUST assign a GRE key and include the GRE Key Extension in the > RRP before sending it to the FA. The HA MUST include the GRE Key > Extension in all RRPs in response to any RRQ that included GRE Key > Extension, when a GRE key is available for the registration. The acronyms RRQ and RRP not defined before in this document. Also, the above does not leave room for other issues and error conditions. What if the HA wants to deny the request for some other reason, not related to GRE at all? > The HA MUST follow the procedures specified in RFC 3344 in processing > this extension in Registration Request messages. If the HA receives > the GRE Key Extension in a Registration Request and does not > recognize this non-skippable extension, it MUST silently discard the > message. Perhaps this is already explained in some other document, but how does one recover from this situation. Jari |
2011-02-28
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Last Call text changed |
2011-02-24
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Pete McCann. Yes, I have reviewed this version of the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes, and no. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No concerns. No IPR disclosure related to this document has been filed. (1.e) 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? Consensus is solid. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? One nit: the reference to RFC3344 should be replaced with RFC5944. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document contains only normative references, contained in a properly labeled "Normative References" section. No downward refs are present. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA section requests allocation of one Mobile IP Extension Type needed by the document. Missing is a request to allocate the Subtype registry for this type. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No such formal languages exist. (1.k) 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 The GRE specification contains a Key field, which MAY contain a value that is used to identify a particular GRE data stream. This specification defines a new Mobile IP extension that is used to exchange the value to be used in the GRE Key field when GRE tunneling is used. Working Group Summary Considerable time was spent discussing whether the presence of a GRE key extension inserted by an FA can override the setting of the 'G' bit by the MN. We decided that it can, but only when using FA-located tunneling. Document Quality The protocol has been implemented in vendor-specific 3GPP2 extensions previously. The idea is well understood and the present document is of high quality. |
2011-02-24
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-02-24
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Pete McCann (mccap@petoni.org) is the document shepherd.' added |
2011-02-11
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-04.txt |
2010-10-18
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-03.txt |
2010-09-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-02.txt |
2010-07-26
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-01.txt |
2010-06-01
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-00.txt |