Skip to main content

Network Mobility Support Terminology
RFC 4885

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-05-16
06 (System) Changed document authors from "Thierry Ernst" to "Thierry Ernst, Hong Lach"
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from nemo-chairs@ietf.org,hong-yon.lach@motorola.com to hong-yon.lach@motorola.com
2007-08-13
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2007-08-13
06 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4885' added by Amy Vezza
2007-07-18
06 (System) RFC published
2006-12-12
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-12-04
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-12-04
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-12-04
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-12-01
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-11-30
2006-11-30
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-11-30
06 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens
2006-11-30
06 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2006-11-30
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2006-11-30
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2006-11-30
06 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2006-11-30
06 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2006-11-30
06 Mark Townsley
[Ballot comment]
I understand acronym conflicts are hard to avoid, but "CE" seems a particularly annoying one as it is commonly referred to as "Customer …
[Ballot comment]
I understand acronym conflicts are hard to avoid, but "CE" seems a particularly annoying one as it is commonly referred to as "Customer Equipment" in the other half of the int-area. Given that "Entity" isn't a really descriptive term anyway, perhaps something else could be chosen? "CNR" for "Correspondent Node or Router" perhaps (this happens to encode that it can be either a CR and CN as well, which may be considered convenient)?

2.10.  Correspondent Entity (CE)

  Refers to the entity which a Mobile Router or Mobile Network Node
  attempts to establish a Route Optimization session with.  Depending
  on the Route Optimization approach, the Correspondent Entity maybe a
  Correspondent Node or Correspondent Router (see also NEMO Route
  Optimization in Section 7.5)
2006-11-30
06 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2006-11-30
06 Jari Arkko State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jari Arkko
2006-11-30
06 Jari Arkko
This is the writeup from Thierry, even if he is an author (!)

    (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has …
This is the writeup from Thierry, even if he is an author (!)

    (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 am the document editor, so I will shepherd these documents. I believe
they are 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?

I do not have any concerns about the review of the documents. They 
were presented numerous times in the NEMO working group sessions and 
discussed on the mailing list. The issues which have been raised have been considered as it could be shown on http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/nemo/


    (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?

At this point, I believe the documents have had sufficient review. The
documents are informational and do not bear such concernd as listed here
above.

    (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.

No, there has not been any controversy about these documents and I 
don't have any reservation putting them forward.

    (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?

A few terms from the terminology draft have had some controversy; the
definitions of these term have been brought during the IETF meetings and
amended when necessary (some proposed terms have been removed, or a new
definitions have been proposed). These documents have had a long life,
the WG has been somewhat upset that it took so long for the editor to
produce the final version but the WG has a consensus that these
documents are needed and where useful to structure the discussions on
issues and solutions.

    (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?

I have personally run both documents through the nits checker, with 
no nits found.

    (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].

Yes, they are split into normative and informative. The only  normative
reference that is not finished is draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues
that is also exptectedd to be submitted for IESG review.

    (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 suggested a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See
          [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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 section exists, and it states that there is no IANA action 
needed. Since the documents are informative and do not propose any 
new protocol elements, I believe this is correct.

    (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?

Not applicable.

    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

draft-ietf-nemo-terminology:

Network mobility arises when a router connecting a network to the 
Internet dynamically changes its point of attachment to the Internet 
thereby causing the reachability of the said network to be changed in 
relation to the fixed Internet topology.  Such kind of network is 
referred to as a mobile network.  With appropriate mechanisms, 
sessions established between nodes in the mobile network and the 
global Internet can be maintained after the mobile router changes its 
point of attachment. 

This document is an informative reference, and defines a terminology for
discussing network mobility (NEMO) issues and solution requirements. The
document was written with the extensive help and review of the NEMO
working  group. The Document Shepherd for this document is T. Ernst and
the Responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko.

draft-ietf-nemo-requirements:

Network mobility arises when a router connecting a network to the 
Internet dynamically changes its point of attachment to the Internet 
thereby causing the reachability of the said network to be changed in 
relation to the fixed Internet topology.  Such kind of network is 
referred to as a mobile network.  With appropriate mechanisms, 
sessions established between nodes in the mobile network and the 
global Internet can be maintained after the mobile router changes its 
point of attachment. 

This document is an informative reference, and  outlines the goals
expected from  network mobility support and defines the requirements
that must be  met by the NEMO Basic Support solution. The document was
written with the extensive help and review of the NEMO working  group.
The Document Shepherd for this document is T. Ernst and the Responsible
Area Director is Jari Arkko.
2006-11-30
06 Jari Arkko [Note]: 'There is no proto shepherd' added by Jari Arkko
2006-11-30
06 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2006-11-29
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2006-11-29
06 Yoshiko Fong IANA Evaluation Comment:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand
this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2006-11-28
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2006-11-27
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2006-11-26
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2006-11-26
06 Jari Arkko Ballot has been issued by Jari Arkko
2006-11-26
06 Jari Arkko Created "Approve" ballot
2006-11-26
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-11-26
06 (System) Last call text was added
2006-11-26
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-11-25
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tim Polk
2006-11-25
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tim Polk
2006-11-22
06 Jari Arkko Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-11-30 by Jari Arkko
2006-11-22
06 Jari Arkko State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from Publication Requested::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jari Arkko
2006-11-22
06 Jari Arkko AD review revealed no issues. Still waiting for the proto writeup!
2006-11-11
06 Jari Arkko State Change Notice email list have been change to nemo-chairs@tools.ietf.org,hong-yon.lach@motorola.com from nemo-chairs@tools.ietf.org
2006-11-11
06 Jari Arkko [Note]: 'Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton <tj@kniveton.org>' added by Jari Arkko
2006-11-11
06 Jari Arkko [Note]: 'Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton ' added by Jari Arkko
2006-11-11
06 Jari Arkko Waiting for the chairs' writeup. Note that Thierry, the other chair is an author.
2006-11-11
06 Jari Arkko Draft Added by Jari Arkko in state Publication Requested
2006-11-09
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt
2006-03-09
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-05.txt
2005-10-27
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-04.txt
2005-02-22
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-03.txt
2004-10-26
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-02.txt
2004-02-17
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-01.txt
2003-05-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-00.txt