Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16e Networks
draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2008-04-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2008-03-26
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2008-03-19
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-03-19
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-03-19
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-03-19
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-03-19
|
07 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::External Party by Jari Arkko |
2008-03-19
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2008-03-19
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
2008-03-19
|
07 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Jari Arkko |
2008-03-19
|
07 | Jari Arkko | New version appears to resolve tim's discuss and some review comments from 802.16. Checking with chairs if they think the review part is now sufficient. |
2008-03-10
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-03-10
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-07.txt |
2008-02-25
|
07 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2008-02-25
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] Holding a Discuss on behalf of 802.16 reviewer's comments. |
2008-02-25
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Jari Arkko |
2008-02-22
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-02-21 |
2008-02-21
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::External Party by Cindy Morgan |
2008-02-21
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] Section 1 2nd paragraph - Should mention that RFC 4260 provides a fast HO solution for IEEE 802.11 networks. - Provide reference for … [Ballot comment] Section 1 2nd paragraph - Should mention that RFC 4260 provides a fast HO solution for IEEE 802.11 networks. - Provide reference for IEEE 802.16. Section 5 Several acronyms from FMIPv6 are used without any introduction, e.g. AR, PAR, FBU, NAR, etc. Section 6 -again many acronyms/message are used without any introduction, e.g. UNA, HI, HACK, etc and others used in the figures -change “..belongs to the different subnet” to “..belongs to a different subnet” Subsection 6.1 -no reference to Figure 3 -for clarification maybe add that msg between L3 and L2 are IEEE 802.21, msg between MN L2 and the BS are IEEE 802.16, and msg between MN L2 and the AR are FMIPv6. Subsection 6.2 -no reference to Figure 4 Section 7 -reference EAP [RFC 3748] and other protection mechanism after updating section (see technical comments) |
2008-02-21
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] The optimizations described in this document are rather nice, and I support publication of this document. There are a couple of issues that … [Ballot discuss] The optimizations described in this document are rather nice, and I support publication of this document. There are a couple of issues that need to be addressed first, though. 1. The link layer (IEEE 802.16e) utilizes the IEEE 802.21 primitives to trigger the FMIPv6. In other words, IEEE 802.21 is used for inter-layer communications (L2<->L3). The following questions arise: a) IEEE 802.21 is still a draft, what happens if the utilized primitives are modified or removed in the final standard? Are other triggers possible for IEEE 802.16? It seems advantageous to provide a general solution and use IEEE 802.21 as example. b) RFC 4260 provides a solution for IEEE 802.11 fast HO without such triggers. Since IEEE 802.21 is media-independent couldn’t the same primitives used as trigger in IEEE 802.11 networks (RFC 4260)? 2. The security considerations in Section 7 are incomplete and contain some incorrect statements. First of all, the referenced security considerations cover only the security of FMIPv6 messages. This follows that a security discussion for IEEE 802.16e and utilized IEEE 802.21 messages is required. Furthermore, interleaving these messages may create new vulnerabilities and thus the proposed message flow should be analyzed in its entirety. The consideration of IEEE 802.16 messages is incomplete, and the messages that need to be protected and the kind of required protection are not explicitly mentioned. In addition, I believe the statement that EAP or EAP-TTLS, EAP-SIM and EAP-AKA are mandatory authentication mechanisms in IEEE 802.16 is incorrect. IEEE 802.16e supports two authentication mechanisms, namely RSA with X.509 certificates and EAP. No mandatory EAP methods are specified, just guidelines they must meet as specified in RFC 4017. No consideration of the utilized IEEE 802.21 primitives is provided. In the current IEE 802.21 draft, such inter-layer event messages are not protected and it could be argued that inter layer messages within a MN do not require protection. However, that should be mentioned. |
2008-02-21
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-02-21
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-02-20
|
07 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-02-20
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-02-20
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-02-18
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-02-14
|
07 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::External Party from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Jari Arkko |
2008-02-14
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Waiting for chairs to tell me if review in IEEE, Wimax has happened. |
2008-02-13
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-02-11
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda. Need to look at the dates, since an IEEE 802.16 review will be needed. |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-02-21 by Jari Arkko |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Last Call was requested by Jari Arkko |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Jari Arkko |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued by Jari Arkko |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-01-30
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-01-30
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-01-30
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-01-30
|
07 | Jari Arkko | New revision addresses my concerns. |
2008-01-30
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-01-30
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-06.txt |
2007-11-27
|
07 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Jari Arkko |
2007-11-27
|
07 | Jari Arkko | I have done my AD review on this document. I have the following comments: 1. The document needs to be clearer about when FMIP procedures … I have done my AD review on this document. I have the following comments: 1. The document needs to be clearer about when FMIP procedures are needed upon link change, and when not. Section 5.2, for instance, says "On receiving the LHI, the IP layer sends an FBU to the PAR." But this appears to be necessary only if the FMIP operations (proxy router solications) indicate that a router and subnet change is implied by the access point change. Same in Section 5.3. 2. The spec needs to document how it deals with the issues from RFC 4907 Section 2. 3. Has there been review in 802.16, 802.21, Wimax Forum, or 16ng WGs? 4. Can you confirm that 802.21 LD is given even for neighboring, scanned links? I.e., even if you still are on your current link, you will an LD if another cell is heard nearby? 5. What is "secure IP address management in 802.16e", mentioned in the security considerations? I am surprised to hear of this, as no mention of it has appeared in 16ng WG work. I am expecting a revised draft and answers to the questions above. |
2007-11-27
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: 'Document Shepherd is Vijay Devarapalli' added by Jari Arkko |
2007-11-27
|
07 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Jari Arkko |
2007-11-26
|
07 | Dinara Suleymanova | 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, … 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? Vijay Devarapalli is the Document Shepherd for this document. I have reviewed the document and it is ready for forwarding 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? This document has been adequately reviewed. 16ng WG members also reviewed this draft. It went through a combined MIPSHOP and 16ng WG last call. (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. (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? There is WG consensus in advancing this document. (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. (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. Idnits seems to report issues with RFC 2119 boilerplate, even though there is a correct one. No other errors. (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 references are split into normative and informative. There are no downward references in the normative references. (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 considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document. The document makes no request from IANA. (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? Does not apply. (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 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 document describes how a Mobile IPv6 Fast Handover can be implemented on link layers conforming to the 802.16e suite of specifications. This document also describes how to optimize the FMIPv6 handover procedure over 802.16 networks. 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. 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? Nothing is known about existing implementations or plans for implementation. 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: Vijay Devarapalli Responsible AD: Jari Arkko/Mark Townsley |
2007-11-26
|
07 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2007-11-16
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-05.txt |
2007-11-13
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-04.txt |
2007-09-04
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-03.txt |
2007-07-11
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-02.txt |
2007-01-03
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-01.txt |
2006-04-13
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-00.txt |