Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03

[Ballot comment]
> Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious
  interoperability issues if they are not used carefully.

I believe that the concerns related to deployment of vendor specific extensions extend beyond interoperability to operational issues like overhead on hosts and routers, impact on network traffic, etc.

I suggest to chage this phrase as follows:

  Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious
  interoperability issues and may have adverse operational impact like
  overhead on hosts and routers, network overload, congestion and
  other if they are not used carefully.

[Ballot discuss]
This DISCUSS mirrors Sam's ABSTAIN and Ron's COMMENT. I believe that vendor-specific extensions for a core Internet protocol are very problematic.

This mechanism opens the door for arbitrary modifications to MIPv6 to occur without any IETF review. It is completely unclear how such vendor extensions would change MIPv6 and how such an extended MIPv6 would interact with the rest of the Internet protocol suite. I don't see how the desire to allow MIPv6 vendors to "distinguish themselves from other vendors" is worth essentially giving up change control of MIPv6 extensions.

(The second rationale given in the draft - "extend the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research (...) purposes" is irrelevant, because that's what the experimental codepoint that draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages allocates is for.)

[Ballot discuss]
This DISCUSS mirrors Sam's ABSTAIN and Ron's DISCUSS. I believe that vendor-specific extensions for a core Internet protocol are very problematic.

This mechanism opens the door for arbitrary modifications to MIPv6 to occur without any IETF review. It is completely unclear how such vendor extensions would change MIPv6 and how such an extended MIPv6 would interact with the rest of the Internet protocol suite. I don't see how the desire to allow MIPv6 vendors to "distinguish themselves from other vendors" is worth essentially giving up change control of MIPv6 extensions.

(The second rationale given in the draft - "extend the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research (...) purposes" is irrelevant, because that's what the experimental codepoint that draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages allocates is for.)

[Ballot comment]
>    Length
>
>      A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding
>      the Type and Length fields.

Please be specific about whether the Vendor ID is included in the length or not.

>    Vendor ID
>
>      The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor/
>      Organization as defined by IANA.

Reference for above, please.

Looks like you could turn a Vendor ID option into an Experimental Option simply by letting the Vendor ID be zero. I can see pros and cons to that, and don't have a lot of conviction either way. Just an observation.

[Ballot comment]
Need to add text convincing the reader that vendor specific options are a good thing in low level protocols. Also need to add text regarding interoperability issues.

[Ballot discuss]
Like the exp message, this message is very flat and how to pass multiple options in one message isn't clear. Exp and vendor messages appear that they could be combined into one message pretty easily.

[Ballot comment]
I'm unsure of the value of a vendor specific option in something as low-level as MIP6.  Also, I don't believe the discussion of interoperability and security is strong enough.

IANA Last Call comments:

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 Vendor Specific Mobility option [RFC-mip6-vsm-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