Skip to main content

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