Mapping Quality of Service (QoS) Procedures of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and WLAN
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-06-10
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-05-22
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-05-18
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-05-15
|
08 | Vijay Gurbani | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2015-04-16
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-04-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-04-14
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-04-14
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-04-13
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2015-04-13
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-04-13
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-04-13
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-04-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-04-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-04-10
|
08 | John Kaippallimalil | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-04-10
|
08 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-08.txt |
2015-04-09
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-04-09
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-04-09
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-04-08
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-04-08
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-04-08
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-04-08
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-04-08
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Just a small question/comment: Given that rfc7222 considers an access network independent way of negotiating QoS, and that this document describes the negotiation … [Ballot comment] Just a small question/comment: Given that rfc7222 considers an access network independent way of negotiating QoS, and that this document describes the negotiation when the access is WiFi, it seems to me that this document updates rfc7222 for this specific case and it should be marked as such. Am I missing something? |
2015-04-08
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-04-02
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2015-04-02
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2015-03-21
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed. Reviewer: Warren Kumari. |
2015-03-21
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2015-03-21
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2015-03-13
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-03-12
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2015-03-12
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2015-03-06
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-03-05
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09 |
2015-03-05
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Ballot has been issued |
2015-03-05
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-03-05
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-03-05
|
07 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-03-05
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-03-05
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-03-04
|
07 | John Kaippallimalil | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-03-04
|
07 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-07.txt |
2015-02-27
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2015-02-26
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-02-17
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-02-17
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-02-17
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-02-17
|
06 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS procedures) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Network-Based Mobility Extensions WG (netext) to consider the following document: - 'Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS procedures' as Informational RFC 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 2015-02-26. 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 provides guidelines for achieving end to end Quality- of-Service (QoS) in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) domain where the access network is based on IEEE 802.11. RFC 7222 describes QoS negotiation between a Mobility Access Gateway (MAG) and Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in a PMIPv6 mobility domain. The negotiated QoS parameters can be used for QoS policing and marking of packets to enforce QoS differentiation on the path between the MAG and LMA. IEEE 802.11-2012, Wi-Fi Multimedia - Admission Control (WMM-AC) describes methods for QoS negotiation between a Wi-Fi Station (MN in PMIPv6 terminology) and an Access Point. This document provides a mapping between the above two sets of QoS procedures and the associated QoS parameters. This document is intended to be used as a companion document to RFC 7222 to enable implementation of end to end QoS. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Last call was requested |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-02-12
|
06 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-02-11
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-02-11
|
06 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-06.txt |
2015-02-09
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-02-09
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-02-09
|
05 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2015-02-04
|
05 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Notification list changed to netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi.all@tools.ietf.org, netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, bpatil1+ietf@gmail.com from bpatil1@gmail.com, "Basavaraj Patil" <bpatil1+ietf@gmail.com> |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Notification list changed to bpatil1@gmail.com, "Basavaraj Patil" <bpatil1+ietf@gmail.com> from bpatil1@gmail.com |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Document shepherd changed to Basavaraj Patil |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Notification list changed to bpatil1@gmail.com from "Basavaraj Patil" <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Hello, The WG I-D: Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS procedures has completed working group last call and is ready for IESG review and … Hello, The WG I-D: Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS procedures has completed working group last call and is ready for IESG review and publication. Please find below the proto writeup for this I-D: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Document to be published as: Informational RFC Why is this the proper type of RFC? The I-D provides information only and does not mandate or specify a protocol and hence the type of RFC requested is appropriate. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes. (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 provides guidelines for achieving end to end QoS in a PMIPv6 domain where the access network is based on IEEE 802.11. RFC 7222 describes QoS negotiation between a MAG and LMA in a PMIPv6 mobility domain. The negotiated QoS parameters can be used for QoS policing and marking of packets to enforce QoS differentiation on the path between the MAG and LMA. IEEE 802.11-2012, WMM-AC describes methods for QoS negotiation between a Wi-Fi Station (MN in PMIPv6 terminology) and an Access Point. This document provides a mapping between the above two sets of QoS procedures and the associated QoS parameters. This document is intended to be used as a companion document to RFC 7222 to enable implementation of end to end QoS. Working Group Summary: The working group initially had reservations about taking up this work. However the authors have subsequently worked through the concerns and updated the scope and the I-D to better meet the needs of the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol in WiFi deployments. There is strong WG support at this time to publish this I-D as an informational RFC. Document Quality: There are no known implementation of the QoS for WiFi proposal in this I-D. The document does not propose any protocol per se. The I-D has been reviewed by multiple people and they have been acknowledged. The document does not specify any MIB, Media type or URIs. 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 and am satisfied with the quality of the document. It is ready for 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. The document has been adequately reviewed and I do not see a reason for additional review from a specific quarter. (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. I have no concerns of issues with this document. The working group has reviewed this I-D and no issues have been raised. (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. All authors have confirmed compliance to 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 known IPR disclosure pertaining to this I-D. (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? There is sufficient WG support and consensus behind this I-D for publication as an informational RFC. (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. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 0 comments (--). (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Document does not specify any MIB, media type or URIs. (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? 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. Publication of this document does noy affect any other 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 document does not require any IANA actiona. (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 IANA actioned are 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. I have reviewed the I-D and run automated checks and am satisfied with the quality. Rgds, -Basavaraj |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Changed document writeup |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Notification list changed to "Basavaraj Patil" <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> |
2015-02-03
|
05 | Basavaraj Patil | Document shepherd changed to Basavaraj Patil |
2015-02-03
|
05 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-05.txt |
2014-12-02
|
04 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-04.txt |
2014-10-16
|
03 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-03.txt |
2014-10-10
|
02 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-02.txt |
2014-07-03
|
01 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-01.txt |
2014-05-07
|
00 | John Kaippallimalil | New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-00.txt |