Flow-Binding Support for Mobile IP
draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-13

[Ballot comment]
Are there privacy considerations that need to be added since a mobile users data may go through multiple tunnels?  Perhaps this diffuses the traceability of that user since multiple tunnels are used or it reveals patterns the mobile user may have as different tunnels are selected.  If these are not concerns, can you explain why?  Thanks.

[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Jürgen Schönwälder in his OPS-DIR review:
I see no problem with publishing this I-D as Experimental RFCs hence
give it a 'Ready'. That said, it would have been nice if the document
would indicate whether the extension impacts any of the MIB modules,
namely the MIP-MIB [RFC2006] and the MOBILEIPV6-MIB [RFC4295]. It
could be that the MIB tables simply work for multiple registrations
over multiple interfaces. Anyway, since this I-D is submitted for
publication as Experimental, I do not consider this necessary to
address at this point in time (just nice to have).

[Ballot discuss]
Simple, but necessary:
In the IANA Considerations,  Action-2 specifies the creation of a new registry, but doesn't specify a registration policy.  It needs one (along with a reference to RFC5226).  (This section also needs the answer to IANA's valid range question, but that's not part of the DISCUSS issue.)

[Ballot comment]
Nit: In Section 4.1, the "Sub-Type" and "Length" fields' definitions are in the "wrong" order in the definition list.

In Section 7...

- The IANA URL in Action-1 needs to be changed as IANA suggests in their review (drop the string after the last "/").  The answer to IANA's question, "Permitted for Notification Messages = N", also has to be added here.

- Nit: Action-3 metions two new values, but only gives instructions for the first one , and talks about it in the singular.  I guess you added INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER  later, and didn't fully change this action. (It's a nit because IANA fully understands what they need to do here.)

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-12.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA has a few questions about the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three IANA actions which must be completed.

First, in the Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages subregistry of the Mobile IPv4 Numbers registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers/

a new extension will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: Multipath-Extension-Type
Permitted for Notification Messages: ??
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What value should be used to populate the "Permitted for Notification Messages field for this registration?

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

QUESTION:
Please change the following URL in the IANA Considerations section:

OLD:
at the URL, .

NEW:
at the URL, .

This will ensure the URL will always work and point to the most current
version/extension.

Second, in the Extension Subtypes of the Mobile IPv4 Numbers registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers/

a new extension subtype registry is to be created for the value created in the Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages subregistry in step one above. The new registry is to be popuated as follows:

Multipath-Extension-Type (Value [ TBD-as-above ])

Registration Procedure(s):
Expert Review
Reference:
[ RFC-to-be ]

Subtype Value: 0
Name: Reserved
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Subtype Value: 1
Name: Multipath
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Subtype Value: 2
Name: Flow-Binding
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

QUESTION:  Is there a range, i.e. max value, for this new created extension subtype registry?
If so, what is the range?

Third, in the Status Codes subregistry of the Mobile IPv6 parameters registry located at:

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

two new status codes are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these registrations should be from the block of status codes where the value is greater than 127.

IANA understands that these three 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. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Mobility for IPv4 WG (mip4) to
consider the following document:
- 'Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP'
  as Experimental 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 2015-05-25. 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 extensions to Mobile IP protocol for
  allowing a mobile node with multiple interfaces to register a care-of
  address for each of its network interfaces and to simultaneously
  establish multiple IP tunnels with its home agent.  This essentially
  allows the mobile node to utilize all the available network
  interfaces and build an higher aggregated logical pipe with its home
  agent for its home address traffic.  Furthermore, these extensions
  also allow the mobile node and the home agent to negotiate IP traffic
  flow policies for binding individual flows with the registered
  care-of addresses.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

>(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?

This draft should be published as an Experimental RFC, as indicated
by the mip4 charter and the current document header.

>(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
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

This specification defines extensions to Mobile IP protocol for allowing
a mobile node with multiple interfaces to register a care-of address for
each of its network interfaces and to simultaneously establish multiple
IP tunnels with its home agent.  This essentially allows the mobile
node to utilize all the available network interfaces and build an higher
aggregated logical pipe with its home agent for its home address traffic.
Furthermore, these extensions also allow the mobile node and the home
agent to negotiate IP traffic flow policies for binding individual flows
with the registered care-of addresses.

>Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

The draft was uncontroversial, but the process took a very long time
because of a lack of reviewers.  Adequate review has finally ben obtained.

>Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?

There is at least one implementation of the protocol.

>Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
>  Director?

Peter McCann is the document shepherd.  Brian Haberman is the responsible
AD.

>(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 shepherd has reviewed the document for completeness
and clarity, and believes 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? 

No.  Several reviews were obtained in the final round before submission,
and no major issues were detected.  Minor editorial changes were accepted.

>(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.

No external directorates needed to be consulted; this document does not
define MIBs or extend any other protocol than Mobile IPv4.

>(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.

No concerns.

>(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.

The shepherd has received positive confirmation from all current authors
that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have been filed.

>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>disclosures.

No disclosures have been filed.

>(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? 

The working group as a whole understands and agrees with the 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 appeals have been threatened and no extreme discontent has been
signaled.

>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
>Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
>thorough.

No nits were found by the idnits checker.

>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review is required; the only protocol extended by this document
is Mobile IPv4 and the extensions are described with message-layout
ASCII art in the manner appropriate for Mobile IPv4.

>(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?

Only published RFCs are referenced by the document.

>(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 downward refs are present in the document; it is going for Experimental
status.

>(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 other documents are updated, obsoleted, or will have their status
changed by the decision to publish this document.

>(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).

IANA considerations give the exact names of the registries that need
to be updated.  The specification of the allocation policy for
the newly created subtype registry is defined.

>(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 extension sub-type registry has an allocation policy of Expert
Review.  I would suggest Sri Gundavelli as the Expert for this space.

>(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.

No such formal languages are used.