Skip to main content

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