Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-07

[Ballot discuss]

(Discussion ongoing, -06 version has no related change, which
may be fine)

I have two questions. They could be easy or hard, I'm not
sure:-) Apologies in advance if I've forgotten what little I
ever knew about PMIPv6 and gotten stuff wrong here.

(1) PMIPv6 traffic between MAG and LMA is generally assumed to
be protected via IPsec, right? Assuming that's actually done,
does figure 1 here indicate a weakening of security since it
shows that IP encapsulation is used between MAG-UP and LMA-UP
without any mention of IPsec. Is that downgrading security? I
get that the binding messages are the most important and will
presumably continue on the control plane but what else changes?

(2) How does the rest of the Internet know to use the LMA-UP
for the MN and not the LMA-CP? Sorry for being dense but I
don't see how packets from a random Internet node for the MN
end up going down the user plane.

[Ballot discuss]

I have two questions. They could be easy or hard, I'm not
sure:-) Apologies in advance if I've forgotten what little I
ever knew about PMIPv6 and gotten stuff wrong here.

(1) PMIPv6 traffic between MAG and LMA is generally assumed to
be protected via IPsec, right? Assuming that's actually done,
does figure 1 here indicate a weakening of security since it
shows that IP encapsulation is used between MAG-UP and LMA-UP
without any mention of IPsec. Is that downgrading security? I
get that the binding messages are the most important and will
presumably continue on the control plane but what else changes?

(2) How does the rest of the Internet know to use the LMA-UP
for the MN and not the LMA-CP? Sorry for being dense but I
don't see how packets from a random Internet node for the MN
end up going down the user plane.

[Ballot comment]

Did you need to say somewhere which PMIPv6 messages are to be
sent in the control plane and which in the user plane? That
might be obvious to some, but its not to me and I guess there
are a bunch of PMIPv6 extensions so I could imagine that
someone somewhere might get it wrong.

[Ballot comment]
A few weirdnesses in section 4:

  There can be multiple
  instances of the LMA User Plane Address mobility option present in
  the message, one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6 transport.
 
Do you really mean "there can be multiple instances", or do you rather mean "there can be either one or two instances: One for IPv4, one for IPv6, or one for each of them"?

      ...the IP address field
      in the option can be either a zero-length field, or...

Two instances of the above. Should that "can" be a MUST?

  ...the IP address field in the option MUST be set...

In the above and the two bullet items below it: Shouldn't the "MUST be" in each one instead be "is"? There's no protocol requirement there. What else *could* an implementation do?

[Ballot comment]
I don't object to this document, but I found...
> No known implementations of the protocol exist at this time. No
> vendors have expressly stated a plan to implement this
> specification either.
...a little odd for a Standard Track document, especially since there was apparently such clear consensus that this is a problem that needs to be solved.
I guess I am old-fashioned enough to hope for running code from time to time.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the Mobility Options subregistry of the Mobile IPv6 parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/

a new mobility option is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: LMA User Plane Address
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network-Based Mobility
Extensions WG (netext) to consider the following document:
- 'Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-07-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies a method to split the Control Plane (CP) and
  User Plane (UP) for a Proxy Mobile IPv6 based network infrastructure.
  Existing specifications allow a mobile access gateway (MAG) to
  separate its control and user plane using the Alternate Care of
  address mobility option for IPv6, or Alternate IPv4 Care of Address
  option for IPv4.  However, the current specification does not provide
  any mechanism allowing the local mobility anchor (LMA) to perform an
  analogous functional split.  To remedy that shortcoming, this
  document specifies a mobility option enabling a LMA to provide an
  alternate LMA address to be used for the bi-directional user plane
  traffic between the MAG and LMA.  With this new option, a LMA will be
  able to use an IP address for its user plane which is different than
  the IP address used for the control plane.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Hello,

The Netext working group I-D: Separation of Control and User Plane for
Proxy Mobile IPv6 d has
completed working group last call. The authors have addressed all
review comments and submitted a revised I-D. It is now ready for IESG
review and IETF last call. Please process accordingly.

The protol writeup for this I-D is included below.

Rgds,
-Raj


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header? 

Proposed Standard


(2) 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:

  This document specifies a method to split the Control Plane (CP) and
  User Plane (UP) for a Proxy Mobile IPv6 based network infrastructure.
  Existing specifications allow a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to
  separate its control and user plane using the Alternate Care of
  address mobility option for IPv6, or Alternate IPv4 Care of Address
  option for IPv4.  However, the current specification does not provide
  any mechanism allowing the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to perform an
  analogous functional split.  To remedy that shortcoming, this
  document specifies a mobility option enabling a LMA to provide an
  alternate LMA address to be used for the bi-directional user plane
  traffic between the MAG and LMA.  With this new option, a LMA will be
  able to use an IP address for its user plane which is different than
  the IP address used for the control plane.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?

This document has sailed through the WG process because the problem
that it aims to solve is clear and has strong consensus among the WG
members.

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 protocol exist at this time. No
vendors have expressly stated a plan to implement this specification
either.
The I-D acknowledges the reviewers who have helped improve the I-D.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil

Responsible AD: Brian Haberman

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have reviewed the I-D prior to the WG last call and provided input
to the authors which has been implemented in the version that is now
ready for submission to the IESG. The document is clearly ready for
IESG review and publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

Broader reviews of this I-D are not required.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has 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 special concerns about this document. It has strong WG consensus.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?


Yes. Each author has confirmed conformance to the provisions of BCP 78
and 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR disclosures associated with this I-D have been filed.


(9) 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 WG consensus is strong and the larger WG understand the
specification and agrees with it.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

No special concern w.r.t ID-nits

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not specify a MIB, media type or URI type.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are published RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

Publishing this I-D will not have an impact on the status of any
existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).

The IANA considerations section is clear and has sufficient
information for IANA to complete the actions. The registry to be used
is specified in this section as well.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new IANA registries will be required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No XML code, BNF rules or MIB definitions have been specified in this document.