Shepherd writeup

(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?

Standards track

(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:

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy
   Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces.  This document
   describes extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are
   required to support network based flow mobility over multiple
   physical interfaces.

   The extensions described in this document consist of the operations
   performed by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway
   to manage the prefixes assigned to the different interfaces of the
   mobile node, as well as how the forwarding policies are handled by
   the network to ensure consistent flow mobility management.

Working Group Summary:

The flow mobility specification has gone through multiple iterations
and changed quite significantly during this time. The changes have
primarily beein in terms of simplifying the protocol. An alternate
proposal was also submitted and discussed in the working group but
consensus has been to adopt and move forward with this I-D. 

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

No. There are no known implementations of this protocol.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
the specification? 

No. The relevance of flow mobility at the present time is
suspect. While there is some adoption of Proxy Mobile IPv6 by the
industry, there is no real demand for flow based mobility. 

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?

The I-D does not specify a MIB or Media type etc. No such expert
reviews have been necessary for this I-D.


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 document and believe that it is ready for

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

A handful of reviewers have indicated that the I-D is complete and
ready for publication. However I do believe that there is a lack of
depth in terms of reviews especially from the perspective of
implementability of the protocol.

(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.

No such reviews needed.

(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.

The I-D makes certain assumptions that are quite significant. For
Sec 3.1 : "In this specification, it is assumed that the local mobility anchor
   is aware of the mobile node's capabilities to have simultaneous
   access to both access networks and it can handle the same or a
   different set of prefixes on each access.  How this is done is
   outside the scope of this specification."

Sec 3.2: "The MN makes the final IP flow mobility decision, and then
   the LMA follows that decision and updates its forwarding state
   accordingly.  Note that this does not prevent network initiated
   mobility, the network still could trigger mobility on the MN side via
   out-of-band mechanisms (e.g., 3GPP/ANDSF sends updated routing
   policies to the MN)."

(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 acknowledged 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


(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?

WG consensus behind this document is weak. It is the concurrence of a
small number of individuals in the WG. Most of the WG is silent on
this document primarily because they do not really see much relevance
from the specification or its applicability. 

(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.)


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

idnits 2.13.02 


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

     No issues found here.


(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 URI type.

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


(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?


(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.


(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. 

Yes. This will update RFC5213.
The impacted RFC is not listed in the title page header, abstract or

In Sec 3.2.1:
This scenario corresponds to the first use case scenario described in
   Section 3.1.  Extensions to basic PMIPv6 [RFC5213] signaling at the
   time of a new attachment are needed to ensure that the same prefix
   (or set of prefixes) is assigned to all the interfaces of the same
   mobile node that are simultaneously attached. 
The considerations of
   Section 5.4.1 of [RFC5213] are updated by this specification as

(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

The IANA considerations section is reasonably clear. No new registry
requests are made by the document. 

(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. 


(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 in the I-D.