Skip to main content

Network Mobility Route Optimization Solution Space Analysis
RFC 4889

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
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 (None)
2007-08-10
03 (System) This was part of a ballot set with: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement
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
PROTO Write-up

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, …
PROTO Write-up

(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: Marcus Leech.
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
2006-11-17
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 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 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 Marcus Leech
2006-11-09
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Marcus Leech
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
AD review posted:

I also reviewed this specification and I have no major
issues with it. I do not believe it handles all issues
associated …
AD review posted:

I also reviewed this specification and I have no major
issues with it. I do not believe it handles all issues
associated with the solution space, but we can take
those when the real solutions are designed.
2006-11-04
03 Jari Arkko State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Jari Arkko
2006-11-04
03 Jari Arkko Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-11-16 by Jari Arkko
2006-11-04
03 Jari Arkko Draft Added by Jari Arkko in state AD Evaluation
2006-11-04
03 Jari Arkko [Note]: 'Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton <tj@kniveton.com>' added by Jari Arkko
2006-09-18
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-03.txt
2006-02-10
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-02.txt
2005-10-27
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-01.txt
2005-09-02
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-00.txt