NSIS Operation over IP Tunnels
draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Next Steps in Signaling WG
(nsis) to consider the following document:
- 'NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels'
  as an Experimental RFC

This is the second IETF last call for this document. It had previously been last called (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07553.html) and approved by the IESG (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07730.html), but a very late IPR disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1461/) arrived during RFC Editor processing. Taking this disclosure into account, the WG has reconfirmed their consensus to publish this document. The purpose of this second IETF last call is to reconfirm the consensus of the IETF at large.

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 2011-01-27. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel/

[Ballot comment]
Section 3.1

  The following definition of IP tunneling is derived from [RFC2473]
  and adapted for both IPv4 and IPv6.

This is a bit odd given the existence of RFC 1853.

[Ballot comment]
It appears that the following references might be normative, not informative: [RFC4080], [RFC2473], [RFC2113], [RFC2711], [RFC2746], [RFC3697], [RFC4081]. Please consult http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html for guidelines regarding the difference between normative and informative references, and consider whether some of the foregoing references would best be changed to normative.

[Ballot comment]
Pleae consider the editorial comments from the Gen-ART Review by
  Francis Dupont on 2010-06-15.  The review can be found at:

    http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
    draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-11-dupont.txt

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment
in the "NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) Parameters" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/nslp-parameters/nslp-parameters.xhtml

sub-registry "NSLP Message Objects"

Value Description Reference
----- ---------------------- ------------
TBD NODE_CAPABILITY_TUNNEL [RFC-ietf-nsis-tunnel-11]

    (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?

The document shepherd is Jukka Manner. The chairs believe the document
is 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?

The document has been extensively reviewed and updated during the
development of the NSIS protocols. There is nothing more to be done.

    (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?

No concerns.

    (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
          this issue.

No concerns.

    (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?

The working group has a solid consensus that the technology specified
in the work is important and needed.


    (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?

The current version has two nits about references. Those are easy to
fix later.

    (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 normative references to the NTLP and QoS NSLP specs which
have been accepted by the IESG.

    (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?

The IANA consideration is fine, it only requests allocation of one new
object.

    (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 are no such needs.


    (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:

          Technical Summary

NSIS Quality of Service (QoS) signaling enables applications to perform QoS
reservation along a data flow path.  When the data flow path contains IP
tunnel segments, NSIS QoS signaling has no effect within those tunnel segments
and the resulting QoS-untended tunnel segments could become the weakest QoS
link which may invalidate the QoS efforts in the rest of the end-to-end path. 
The problem is caused by the tunnel encapsulation which masks packets'
original IP header fields.  Those original IP header fields are needed to
intercept NSIS signaling messages and classify QoS data packets.  This
document defines a solution to this problem by mapping end-to-end QoS session
requests to corresponding QoS sessions in the tunnel, thus extending the end-
to-end QoS signaling into the IP tunnel segments.


          Working Group Summary

The document is a product of the NSIS working group. The WG has reviewed the
document thoroughly, and it has been an important extension to the protocol
family.

          Document Quality

The document is a supplemental document to the core NSIS protocols, and
extends the core specifications to add support for IP tunnels. The technical
details have been validated as part of the work on NSIS protocols operation on
mobile environments.