Network Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement
RFC 4888
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-05-16
|
03 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Pascal Thubert, Masafumi Watari, Fan Zhao" to "Pascal Thubert, Masafumi Watari, Fan Zhao, Chan-Wah Ng" |
|
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from nemo-chairs@ietf.org,chanwah.ng@sg.panasonic.com,fanzhao@ucdavis.edu,watari@kddilabs.jp,pthubert@cisco.com to chanwah.ng@sg.panasonic.com |
|
2007-08-10
|
03 | (System) | This was part of a ballot set with: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis |
|
2007-08-10
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-08-10
|
03 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4888, RFC 4889' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-07-18
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2006-12-06
|
03 | Dinara Suleymanova | 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 … 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 shepherd for these documents. I have reviewed them, and 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 construction and review of the documents was a collaborative process, and the authors were responsive in handling issues that were raised. (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 to represent a good view on route optimization problems and solution space, from a NEMO perspective. Of course the IESG is invited to review them and suggest additional review if necessary. (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? I am not aware of any individuals who had a problem with the contents or outlook of these documents. The goal was to invite all participants to contribute any information on the route optimization problem and solution space, and plenty of discussion to indicate consensus. (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- terminology, which is expected to be submitted by Thierry Ernst to the IESG very soon. (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-ro-problem-statement: With current Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support, all communications to and from Mobile Network Nodes must go through the bi-directional tunnel established between the Mobile Router and Home Agent when the mobile network is away. This document studies the effects of this non-optimized routing on communication with NEMO networks. The NEMO Basic Support protocol is based on Mobile IPv6, and this document also delves into the additional complexities and issues introduced in NEMO that are not present when considering Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization. This document is an informative reference, and is intended to introduce the reader to the problem of Route Optimization for NEMO scenarios. The document was written by authors from various backgrounds, with the extensive help and review of the NEMO working group. The Document Shepherd for this document is T.J. Kniveton and the Responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis: This document describes various types of Route Optimization that have been proposed as additions to Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support, and analyzes them. In NEMO, there is no concept of Route Optimization. All communication must flow through the home network. In draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement, the NEMO working group defines the problem of Route Optimization and how it relates to NEMO. This document takes the existing Route Optimization solution proposals and considers various aspects such as protocol complexity, scalability, privacy, and security. This document is an informative reference, and is intended to familiarize the reader with schemes for Route Optimization in NEMO. The document was written by authors from various backgrounds, with the extensive help and review of the NEMO working group. The Document Shepherd for this document is T.J. Kniveton and the Responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. |
|
2006-11-28
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-11-27
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2006-11-27
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2006-11-27
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2006-11-25
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
|
2006-11-22
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jari Arkko |
|
2006-11-22
|
03 | Jari Arkko | My question about the one change to the WG received no opposition. Approving the document now! |
|
2006-11-17
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-11-16 |
|
2006-11-16
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-11-16
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] Section 2.1: Applications such as real-time multimedia streaming may not be able to tolerate such … [Ballot comment] Section 2.1: Applications such as real-time multimedia streaming may not be able to tolerate such increase in packet delay. I wouldn't clasify streaming as a particular delay sensitive application. An increased network delay does only add to the intial buffering for such applications. However when talking about real-time communications in general the delay is certainly an issue. |
|
2006-11-16
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2006-11-16
|
03 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
|
2006-11-16
|
03 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens |
|
2006-11-15
|
03 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2006-11-15
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2006-11-15
|
03 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot comment] There is a lot of good work here. The solutions document provides an excellent survey of the existing work. But the analysis seems … [Ballot comment] There is a lot of good work here. The solutions document provides an excellent survey of the existing work. But the analysis seems lacking especially in areas where the existing work is kind of lacking, such as security. I don't believe that this ballot is sufficient as a basis for a standards-track nemo ro approach. There are a lot of discussions of security, architecture and how well considered the input proposals are that still need to happen. I think there needs to be significannt input from the IPV6 and MIP6 communities before we get to an approach that is likely to withstand IETF review. I'm balloting an abstain rather than a no-ob because it seems like there is a lot of half-baked analysis mixed in with some really good stuff and I'm concerned that separating it out will be hard. Specific examples that really triggered this abstain include: The claim in 2.5 of the problem statement that there is a security problem associated with accepting traffic from visiting nodes. The idea of using an anycast address to find correspondant routers. The idea of creating a multilink subnet for all the nodes in the mobile network. Use of CGA to prove ownership of a prefix. Yes, these ideas have been brought forward. They should be discussed. But the analysis seems rather incomplete. |
|
2006-11-15
|
03 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded by Sam Hartman |
|
2006-11-14
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2006-11-14
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-11-14
|
03 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Evaluation Comment: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2006-11-13
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2006-11-13
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued by Jari Arkko |
|
2006-11-13
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2006-11-13
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2006-11-13
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2006-11-13
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2006-11-09
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2006-11-09
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2006-11-09
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Telechat review by SECDIR to Tero Kivinen was rejected |
|
2006-11-09
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
|
2006-11-09
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
|
2006-11-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Jari Arkko |
|
2006-11-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | AD review revealed no major issues. |
|
2006-11-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-11-16 by Jari Arkko |
|
2006-11-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State Change Notice email list have been change to nemo-chairs@tools.ietf.org,chanwah.ng@sg.panasonic.com,fanzhao@ucdavis.edu,watari@kddilabs.jp,pthubert@cisco.com from nemo-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
|
2006-11-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: 'Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton <tj@kniveton.com>' added by Jari Arkko |
|
2006-11-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | (1.a) I am the document shepherd for these documents. I have reviewed them, and believe they are ready for publication. (1.b) I do … (1.a) I am the document shepherd for these documents. I have reviewed them, and believe they are ready for publication. (1.b) 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 construction and review of the documents was a collaborative process, and the authors were responsive in handling issues that were raised. (1.c) At this point, I believe the documents have had sufficient review to represent a good view on route optimization problems and solution space, from a NEMO perspective. Of course the IESG is invited to review them and suggest additional review if necessary. (1.d) No, there has not been any controversy about these documents and I don't have any reservation putting them forward. (1.e) I am not aware of any individuals who had a problem with the contents or outlook of these documents. The goal was to invite all participants to contribute any information on the route optimization problem and solution space, and plenty of discussion to indicate consensus. (1.f) No. (1.g) I have personally run both documents through the nits checker, with no nits found. (1.h) Yes, they are split into normative and informative. The only normative reference that is not finished is draft-ietf-nemo-terminology, which is expected to be submitted by Thierry Ernst to the IESG very soon. (1.i) 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) Not applicable. (1.k) draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement: With current Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support, all communications to and from Mobile Network Nodes must go through the bi-directional tunnel established between the Mobile Router and Home Agent when the mobile network is away. This document studies the effects of this non-optimized routing on communication with NEMO networks. The NEMO Basic Support protocol is based on Mobile IPv6, and this document also delves into the additional complexities and issues introduced in NEMO that are not present when considering Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization. This document is an informative reference, and is intended to introduce the reader to the problem of Route Optimization for NEMO scenarios. The document was written by authors from various backgrounds, with the extensive help and review of the NEMO working group. The Document Shepherd for this document is T.J. Kniveton and the Responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis: This document describes various types of Route Optimization that have been proposed as additions to Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support, and analyzes them. In NEMO, there is no concept of Route Optimization. All communication must flow through the home network. In draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement, the NEMO working group defines the problem of Route Optimization and how it relates to NEMO. This document takes the existing Route Optimization solution proposals and considers various aspects such as protocol complexity, scalability, privacy, and security. This document is an informative reference, and is intended to familiarize the reader with schemes for Route Optimization in NEMO. The document was written by authors from various backgrounds, with the extensive help and review of the NEMO working group. The Document Shepherd for this document is T.J. Kniveton and the Responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. |
|
2006-11-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Draft Added by Jari Arkko in state AD Evaluation |
|
2006-09-18
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-03.txt |
|
2005-12-28
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-02.txt |
|
2005-10-11
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-01.txt |
|
2005-07-05
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-00.txt |