The Netext WG I-D: "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
<draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07> has completed working group last call
and is ready to be advanced to the IESG for review and approval for
Intended status of the I-D: Standards track
Please consider this as a request for progressing this WG I-D towards
publication following IESG reviews and IETF LC.
(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 (Basavaraj Patil) am the document shepherd for this document. I have
reviewed this version of the I-Dand believe that it is ready to be
forwarded 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?
The document has had adequate review by key WG members. It has not had
any review by people outside the scope of the WG. I do not have
concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews received.
(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?
I do not have any concerns regarding the need for further review by
any specific group of experts.
(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
I have no concerns with the content or quality of the document.
(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 sufficient WG consensus behind this document. The active
constituents of the Netext WG are in support of this document while
the rest are simply silent.
(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.)
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?
Yes, I have run the document through the ID-Nits tools and apart from
a few warnings, there are no concerns.
(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 has split references into normative and informative
sections. All references are published RFCs and hence there is no
concern about dependency on the referenced documents.
(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 suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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?
Yes. The IANA section contains clear instructions for allocation of a
new mobility header type. The registryto be used is also provided in
the IANA section of the I-D.
(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?
There is no XML code or MIB definitions contained in the I-D.
(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:
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management
protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its
participation in any mobility-related signaling. PMIPv6 requires all
communications to go through the local mobility anchor. As this can
be suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows mobile nodes attached to
the same or different mobile access gateways to route traffic by
using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways.
This document proposes initiation, utilization and termination
mechanisms for localized routing between mobile access gateways
within a proxy mobile IPv6 domain. It defines two new signaling
messages, Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) and Local Routing
Acknowledgment (LRA), that are used to realize this mechanism.
Working Group Summary
This document has been presented and discussed at length in the
working group. It includes multiple contributors who are listed in
the Authors section. There is sufficient consensus behind the
document. The authors could not agree on the tunnelling mechanism
to be used between the MAGs. This has however been resolved based
on the solution that is presented in RFC5949 (Fast Handovers for
Proxy Mobile IPv6).
There are no known implementation of the protocol at the present
time. However there is strong interest in utilizing the
optimization feature in the context of network based mobility
solutions. The document quality is good and provides reasonable
clarity for an implementer who understands PMIP6 (RFC5213).