Mobile IPv6 Experimental Messages
draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-03

[Ballot comment]
Section 1., paragraph 1:
>    gets deployed with these messages.  Therefore it is considered a good
>    practice to set aside some messages for experimental purposes.  The
>    need for experimental messages is shown in [3].

  It's not _messages_ that are typically set aside for experimentation,
  it's _codepoints_ to allow identification of experimental messages.
  Suggest to clarify this throughout the document.


Section 5., paragraph 0:
>    5.  Security Considerations

  Please see the security considerations of RFC 4727 - three of the four
  paragraphs seem to apply here as well.

[Ballot discuss]
>      A 16-bit reserved field set to zero by the sender and ignored by
>      the receiver.

Normally, this type of text probably fine for a reserved field. However, you have a built-in checksum in the header that covers these bits. Thus, I think you need a MUST here for setting to zero, and some thought about what "ignored" means with respect to the checksum. I suppose the checksum should actually *not* ignore these bits.

> Data specific to the experimental protocol extension.  The total
> length is indicated by the 'Header Len' field in the Mobility
> Header.

Including the reserved field or not? Probably a good idea to be specific.

In fact, the more I look at this, I wonder why for such unstructured data you even need
to force alignment with this mandatory reserved field. Leave it up to the Experiment
as to whether they want to align the data or not.

Why does "4.  Experimental Mobility Option" begin on the 16th bit when the definition of mobility options in RFC 3775 does not?

I don't see any advice on whether it is possible to include more than one exp option in a single message.

[Ballot discuss]
>      A 16-bit reserved field set to zero by the sender and ignored by
>      the receiver.

Normally, this type of text probably fine for a reserved field. However, you have a built-in checksum in the header that covers these bits. Thus, I think you need a MUST here for setting to zero, and some thought about what "ignored" means with respect to the checksum. I suppose the checksum should actually *not* ignore these bits.

> Data specific to the experimental protocol extension.  The total
> length is indicated by the 'Header Len' field in the Mobility
> Header.

Including the reserved field or not? Probably a good idea to be specific.

In fact, the more I look at this, I wonder why for such unstructured data you even need
to force alignment with this mandatory reserved field. Leave it up to the Experiment
as to whether they want to align the data or not.

Why does "4.  Experimental Mobility Option" begin on the 16th bit when the definition of mobility options in RFC 3775 does not?

[Ballot discuss]
I find it odd we are taking an experimental header as PS where no discussion of contents of the message are alluded to. Also, the packet is very "flat" and there is no internal format proposed subTLV. Therefore, it isn't quite clear how to pass multiple options.

[Ballot comment]
The introduction generally does a nice job identifying message handling requirements
that are inherited from RFC 3775.  One instance was missed, though:  a reader without
a MIPv6 background could interpret the following text (section 1, paragraph 3) as
imposing a new requirement:

  Mobile nodes that do not recognize the mobility message
  type should discard the message and send an ICMP Parameter problem
  with code 0.

I suggest adding a reference to 3775, as with the processing requirements for Home
Agent or correspondent node implementations in the previous sentence.

[Ballot comment]
The introduction generally does a nice job identifying message handling requirements
that are inherited from RFC 3775.  One instance was missed, though:  a reader without
a MIPv6 background could interpret the following text (section 1, paragraph 3) as
imposing a new requirement:

  Mobile nodes that do not recognize the mobility message
  type should discard the message and send an ICMP Parameter problem
  with code 0.

I suggest adding a reference to 3775, as with the processing requirements for Home
Agent or correspondent node implementations in the previous sentence.

[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART review by Francis Dupont.

  In abstract page 1: s/header/Header/
  BTW as MH is the common abbrev Mobility Header should always get
  the 'H'.  This is not clear for Mobility Option but a choice has
  to be done and applied...

  ToC and section 7: s/Acknowledgements/Acknowledgments/

  Section 1, page 3: s/Proxy MIPv6/Proxy Mobile IPv6/

  The figure in page 3 seems a bit strange because some important and
  decribed fields are not in it. I believe it is directly from RFC 3775
  section 6.1 "Mobility Header" which gives only the content of messages,
  so IMHO this section needs an explicit reference to RFC 3775 section 6.1.

IANA Last Call question:

Is the first assignment to open up a new subregistry that is parallel
to the "Mobility Header Types - per [RFC3775]," or is this to be an
option inside the "Mobility Header Types - per [RFC3775]" registry?

Assuming the request is of the second kind:

Action #1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Mobile IPv6 parameters - per [RFC3775]"
registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters

sub-registry "Mobility Header Types - per [RFC3775]"
Value Description Reference
----- --------------------------- ---------
TDB Experimental Mobility Header [RFC-mip6-experimental-messages-01]


Action #2:
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Mobile IPv6 parameters - per [RFC3775]"
registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters

sub-registry "Mobility Options - per [RFC3775]"
Value Description Reference
----- ----------------------------------------- ---------
TDB-1 Experimental mobility option [RFC-mip6-experimental-
messages-01]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

PROTO Write-up

(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?

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
I have reviewed the I-Ds and believe the documents are ready to be
forwarded to the IESG 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?

The documents have been reviewed sufficiently. They are fairly simple
I-Ds and proposing vendor specific extensions for the mobility header
messages and a new experimental MH message. I do not have any concerns
about the depth or breadth of the reviews or the need for any further
reviews.

(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?

I do not believe there is a need for further reviews or to broaden the
scope of the reviews.

(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.

I believe the documents are ready and do not have any concerns
progressing them.


(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?

The documents have been presented to the MIP6 WG at meetings and there
is consensus on the proposed extensions contained in these I-Ds.


(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No appeal threats or otherwise have been made for these I-Ds.


(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Yes. I have run the I-Ds through the ID-nits checker at tools.ietf.org
and no issues were indicated.


(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].

Yes. The documents have split the references into normative and
informative sections.


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations 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 [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG
Evaluation?

The IANA section exists and is satisfactory.


(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?

Not applicable to the I-Ds being discussed here.


(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

I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages
This document defines a new experimental Mobility header message and
a mobility option that can be used for experimental extensions to the
Mobile IPv6 protocol.

I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-vsm
There is a need for vendor specific extensions to Mobility Header
messages so that Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol
for research or deployment purposes. This document defines a new
vendor specific mobility option.

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

No controversy has been raised or identified with these I-Ds. The
I-Ds are fairly simple and the extensions useful for the MIP6 protocol.


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?

No known implementations of the extensions being proposed here
exist. No media types of MIB exists in the documents.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko