Network Mobility Support Terminology
draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2006-12-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2006-12-04
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-12-04
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-12-04
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-12-01
|
06 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-11-30 |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2006-11-30
|
06 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot comment] I understand acronym conflicts are hard to avoid, but "CE" seems a particularly annoying one as it is commonly referred to as "Customer … [Ballot comment] I understand acronym conflicts are hard to avoid, but "CE" seems a particularly annoying one as it is commonly referred to as "Customer Equipment" in the other half of the int-area. Given that "Entity" isn't a really descriptive term anyway, perhaps something else could be chosen? "CNR" for "Correspondent Node or Router" perhaps (this happens to encode that it can be either a CR and CN as well, which may be considered convenient)? 2.10. Correspondent Entity (CE) Refers to the entity which a Mobile Router or Mobile Network Node attempts to establish a Route Optimization session with. Depending on the Route Optimization approach, the Correspondent Entity maybe a Correspondent Node or Correspondent Router (see also NEMO Route Optimization in Section 7.5) |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jari Arkko |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Jari Arkko | This is the writeup from Thierry, even if he is an author (!) (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has … This is the writeup from Thierry, even if he is an author (!) (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? I am the document editor, so I will shepherd these documents. I believe they are ready 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? I do not have any concerns about the review of the documents. They were presented numerous times in the NEMO working group sessions and discussed on the mailing list. The issues which have been raised have been considered as it could be shown on http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/nemo/ (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? At this point, I believe the documents have had sufficient review. The documents are informational and do not bear such concernd as listed here above. (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. No, there has not been any controversy about these documents and I don't have any reservation putting them forward. (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? A few terms from the terminology draft have had some controversy; the definitions of these term have been brought during the IETF meetings and amended when necessary (some proposed terms have been removed, or a new definitions have been proposed). These documents have had a long life, the WG has been somewhat upset that it took so long for the editor to produce the final version but the WG has a consensus that these documents are needed and where useful to structure the discussions on issues and solutions. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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? I have personally run both documents through the nits checker, with no nits 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]. Yes, they are split into normative and informative. The only normative reference that is not finished is draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues that is also exptectedd to be submitted for IESG review. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration 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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The section exists, and it states that there is no IANA action needed. Since the documents are informative and do not propose any new protocol elements, I believe this is correct. (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. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology: Network mobility arises when a router connecting a network to the Internet dynamically changes its point of attachment to the Internet thereby causing the reachability of the said network to be changed in relation to the fixed Internet topology. Such kind of network is referred to as a mobile network. With appropriate mechanisms, sessions established between nodes in the mobile network and the global Internet can be maintained after the mobile router changes its point of attachment. This document is an informative reference, and defines a terminology for discussing network mobility (NEMO) issues and solution requirements. The document was written with the extensive help and review of the NEMO working group. The Document Shepherd for this document is T. Ernst and the Responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. draft-ietf-nemo-requirements: Network mobility arises when a router connecting a network to the Internet dynamically changes its point of attachment to the Internet thereby causing the reachability of the said network to be changed in relation to the fixed Internet topology. Such kind of network is referred to as a mobile network. With appropriate mechanisms, sessions established between nodes in the mobile network and the global Internet can be maintained after the mobile router changes its point of attachment. This document is an informative reference, and outlines the goals expected from network mobility support and defines the requirements that must be met by the NEMO Basic Support solution. The document was written with the extensive help and review of the NEMO working group. The Document Shepherd for this document is T. Ernst and the Responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: 'There is no proto shepherd' added by Jari Arkko |
2006-11-30
|
06 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie |
2006-11-29
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2006-11-29
|
06 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Evaluation Comment: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2006-11-28
|
06 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2006-11-27
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2006-11-26
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2006-11-26
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued by Jari Arkko |
2006-11-26
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2006-11-26
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2006-11-26
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2006-11-26
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2006-11-25
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tim Polk |
2006-11-25
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tim Polk |
2006-11-22
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-11-30 by Jari Arkko |
2006-11-22
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from Publication Requested::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jari Arkko |
2006-11-22
|
06 | Jari Arkko | AD review revealed no issues. Still waiting for the proto writeup! |
2006-11-11
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State Change Notice email list have been change to nemo-chairs@tools.ietf.org,hong-yon.lach@motorola.com from nemo-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
2006-11-11
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: 'Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton <tj@kniveton.org>' added by Jari Arkko |
2006-11-11
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: 'Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton ' added by Jari Arkko |
2006-11-11
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Waiting for the chairs' writeup. Note that Thierry, the other chair is an author. |
2006-11-11
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Draft Added by Jari Arkko in state Publication Requested |
2006-11-09
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt |
2006-03-09
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-05.txt |
2005-10-27
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-04.txt |
2005-02-22
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-03.txt |
2004-10-26
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-02.txt |
2004-02-17
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-01.txt |
2003-05-15
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-00.txt |