Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers
draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01

[Ballot comment]
From the IANA Considerations:

>  This document defines a new ICMPv6 message, which has been allocated
>  from the ICMPv6 Type registry.

>      154 FMIPv6 Messages

Wasn't this message defined in 5268?

[Ballot discuss]
From the IANA Considerations:

>  This document creates a new registry for the 'Subtype' field in the
>  above ICMPv6 message, called the "FMIPv6 Message Types".  IANA has
>  assigned the following values.

            [...]

>  The values '0' and '1' are reserved.  The upper limit is 255.  An RFC
>  is required for new message assignment.  The Subtype values 4 and 5
>  are deprecated and are marked as unassigned for future allocations.

As noted in Alexey's comment, it seems like a bad idea to permit
reassignment of these values.

[Ballot comment]
I am aware that this document is at the third RFC iteration. I would have expected however at this phase at least to have the authors add information about operational impact and manageability considerations related to mobile IPv6 fast handovers.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review from Brian Carpenter raised an important question
  that deserves a clear response.  What is an implementation  of this
  specification supposed to do if it receives one of the deprecated
  ICMPv6 messages defined in RFC 5268?

[Ballot comment]
11.  IANA Considerations

[...]

  This document creates a new registry for the 'Subtype' field in the
  above ICMPv6 message, called the "FMIPv6 Message Types".  IANA has
  assigned the following values.

[...]

  The values '0' and '1' are reserved.  The upper limit is 255.  An RFC
  is required for new message assignment.  The Subtype values 4 and 5
  are deprecated and are marked as unassigned for future allocations.

I don't know what is the predicted rate of allocations from this
registry, but is it wise to unassign deprecated values to allow their reuse in the future?

[Ballot comment]
11.  IANA Considerations

[...]

  This document creates a new registry for the 'Subtype' field in the
  above ICMPv6 message, called the "FMIPv6 Message Types".  IANA has
  assigned the following values.

            +---------+-------------------+-----------------+
            | Subtype |    Description    |    Reference    |
            +---------+-------------------+-----------------+
            |    2    |      RtSolPr      |  Section 6.1.1  |
            |    3    |      PrRtAdv      |  Section 6.1.2  |
            |    4    |  HI - Deprecated  | Section 6.2.1.1 |
            |    5    | HAck - Deprecated | Section 6.2.1.2 |
            +---------+-------------------+-----------------+

  The values '0' and '1' are reserved.  The upper limit is 255.  An RFC
  is required for new message assignment.  The Subtype values 4 and 5
  are deprecated and are marked as unassigned for future allocations.

I don't know what is the predicted rate of allocations from this
registry, but is it wise to unassign deprecated values to allow their reuse in the future?

[Ballot comment]
You seem to have accidentally removed a definite article from "and MUST send an FBU to PAR" in section 3.3. Or you have failed to remove the definite article from "In such networks, the PAR."

6.2.1.2
  Finally, the New Access Router can always refuse handover, in which
  case it should indicate the reason in one of the available Code
  values.
Is that SHOULD? And if so, why is it not MUST?
(Yes, I know the text is copied from the equivalent in 5268.)

Section 6.4
I know some of this is lifted from 5268, but I would prefer the prefix lengths to explicitly state that they are counting bits. The previous field called Length explicitly states "octets".

IANA questions/comments:

- The FMIPv6 Messages ICMPv6 Type has already been allocated. Is there
anything you would like IANA to do for this? Should we add a reference
to this document? Replace the existing reference?

- The FMIPv6 Message Types sub-registry has aleady been created. Other
than marking types 4 and 5 as deprecated, is there anything else you
would like IANA to do?

- The Binding Authorization Data for FMIPv6 (BADF) Mobility Option has
already been allocated. Is there anything you would like IANA to
do for this?

- The Neighbor Discovery options have already been allocated. Is
there anything you would like IANA to do for this?

- The Fast Binding Update and Fast Binding Acknowledgement Mobility
Header Types have already been allocated. Is there anything you
would like IANA to do for this?

- The Mobility Header Link-Layer Address option Mobility Option has
already been allocated. Is there anything you would like IANA to do
for this?

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Mobility Header Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters

Value Description Reference
----- -------------------------------- ---------
TBD Handover Initiate Message [RFC-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01]
TBD Handover Acknowledge Message [RFC-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01]


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Mobility Options" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters

Value Description Reference
----- -------------------------------------------- ---------
TBD Mobility Header IPv6 Address/Prefix option [RFC-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01]


Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "FMIPv6 Message Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters

OLD:

Subtype Description Reference
------- ---------------------------------- ---------
4 HI [RFC5268]
5 HAck [RFC5268]


NEW:

Subtype Description Reference
------- ---------------------------------- ---------
4 HI - Deprecated (Available for assignment) [RFC5268][RFC-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01]
5 HAck - Deprecated (Available for assignment) [RFC5268][RFC-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01]


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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  (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 had adequate reviews from the members in the
MIPSHOP WG. This document is a revision of RFC 5268 which has had
a substantial number of reviews. I have no concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

  (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?

None.

  (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 specific concerns. The main change in this document from RFC
5268 is the change in messages format for the Handover Initiate
(HI) and Handover Acknowledge (HACK ) messages between the access
routers. RFC 5268 uses ICMPv6 for the HI and HACK messages. This
document updates these messages to use the Mobility Header
Protocol. It obsoletes RFC 5268.

  (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.

No nits were found.

  (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 document splits the references into normative and
informative 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 requests reservations in
the appropriate IANA registries. The IANA registries that need to
be modified/created are clearly identified.

  (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 specifies a protocol to improve handover latency
due to Mobile IPv6 procedures. During handover, there is a period
during which the Mobile Node is unable to send or receive packets
because of link switching delay and IP protocol operations.  This
"handover latency" resulting from standard Mobile IPv6 procedures,
namely movement detection, new Care-of Address configuration, and
Binding Update, is often unacceptable to real-time traffic such as
Voice over IP (VoIP).

This documents updates the packet formats for the Handover
Initiate (HI) and Handover Acknowledgement (HAck) messages to
Mobility Header Type.

          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?

None.

          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 are multiple implementations of the FMIPv6 protocol. There
are also some folks wanting to deploy this protocol for fast
PMIPv6 handovers.

          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