Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile Access Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor Interaction with Diameter Server
RFC 5779
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from dime-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-pmip6@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
|
2010-03-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5779' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5579' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-02-26
|
04 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2009-10-02
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2009-10-02
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2009-10-02
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2009-10-01
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2009-09-29
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2009-09-28
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-09-28
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2009-09-28
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2009-09-28
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-09-24
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-09-24
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-09-23
|
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2009-09-23
|
04 | (System) | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system |
|
2009-09-22
|
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-09-22
|
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] |
|
2009-09-22
|
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03, and have couple of questions/concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document: First, a … [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03, and have couple of questions/concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document: First, a question: specifying just AVPs (but no Diameter application or other details) for the MAG-to-HAAA interaction probably makes sense, since the MAG and HAAA most likely have some Diameter interaction already (where these AVPs can be added). But why did the WG choose not to define all the Diameter details for LMA-to-HAAA interaction? (Just defining AVPs means there is no interoperability between LMAs and HAAAs based on this spec...) Couple of minor questions/nits: According to RFC 5447, the MIP6-Agent-Info group must include either MIP-Home-Agent-Address AVP, the MIP-Home-Agent-Host AVP, or both AVPs. What are the semantics of these AVPs in the HAAA-to-LMA answer message? How is the link-layer identifier from Mobile Node Link-Layer Identifier Option stored in the Calling-Station-Id AVP? |
|
2009-09-22
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-04.txt |
|
2009-09-11
|
04 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 |
|
2009-09-10
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
|
2009-09-10
|
04 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-09-10
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-09-10
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2009-09-09
|
04 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2009-09-09
|
04 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-09-09
|
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2009-09-09
|
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2009-09-09
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-09-08
|
04 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-09-08
|
04 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2009-09-07
|
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] The section references in Figure 1 are wrong. |
|
2009-09-07
|
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03, and have couple of questions/concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document: First, a … [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03, and have couple of questions/concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document: First, a question: specifying just AVPs (but no Diameter application or other details) for the MAG-to-HAAA interaction probably makes sense, since the MAG and HAAA most likely have some Diameter interaction already (where these AVPs can be added). But why did the WG choose not to define all the Diameter details for LMA-to-HAAA interaction? (Just defining AVPs means there is no interoperability between LMAs and HAAAs based on this spec...) Couple of minor questions/nits: According to RFC 5447, the MIP6-Agent-Info group must include either MIP-Home-Agent-Address AVP, the MIP-Home-Agent-Host AVP, or both AVPs. What are the semantics of these AVPs in the HAAA-to-LMA answer message? How is the link-layer identifier from Mobile Node Link-Layer Identifier Option stored in the Calling-Station-Id AVP? |
|
2009-09-07
|
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-09-05
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2009-09-04
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2009-09-03
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
|
2009-09-03
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
|
2009-09-02
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-09-02
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-09-02
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-09-02
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-09-02
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-08-24
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-08-24
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03.txt |
|
2009-08-18
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
|
2009-08-06
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-08-05
|
04 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-08-03
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
|
2009-08-03
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
|
2009-08-03
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA questions/comments: QUESTION: In Section 4.8 you refer to the Service-Selection AVP as code TBD, but it was assigned value 493 from [RFC-ietf-dime-mip6-split-17]. Should your … IANA questions/comments: QUESTION: In Section 4.8 you refer to the Service-Selection AVP as code TBD, but it was assigned value 493 from [RFC-ietf-dime-mip6-split-17]. Should your document be updated to reflect that, or are you asking for another registration? Action 1 (Section 9.1): Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "AVP Codes" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml AVP Code Attribute Name Reference ------- ------------- --------- TBD PMIP6-DHCP-Server-Address [RFC-dime-pmip6-02] TBD PMIP6-IPv4-Home-Address [RFC-dime-pmip6-02] TBD Mobile-Node-Identifier [RFC-dime-pmip6-02] TBD Service-Configuration [RFC-dime-pmip6-02] Action 2 (Section 9.2): Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Mobility Capability Registry" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml Value Token Reference ------------- ---------- ---------- 0x0000010000000000 | PMIP6_SUPPORTED | [RFC-dime-pmip6-02] 0x0000020000000000 | IP4_HOA_SUPPORTED | [RFC-dime-pmip6-02] 0x0000040000000000 | LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED | [RFC-dime-pmip6-02] Action 3 (Section 9.3): Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "Result-Code AVP Values (code 268) - Permanent Failure" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml AVP Values Attribute Name Reference ---------- -------------- --------- TBD DIAMETER_PMIP6_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED [RFC-dime-pmip6-02] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
|
2009-07-22
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2009-07-22
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-07-22
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-07-22
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-07-22
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-07-22
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-07-22
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-06-03
|
04 | Amy Vezza | PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6 ======================================= http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-02 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6 ======================================= http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-02 (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? Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd. The document is ready for publication. Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document was reviewed within the DIME working group and also by members of the NETLMM group. (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? There are no concerns regarding the amount of review. The document will be reviewed by the AAA doctors group in a later publication phase. (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no concerns with the document. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus within the DIME WG to publish the document. This document is also of interest to the 3GPP to use this specification (i.e., it is listed on the dependency list). (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.) Nobody stated discontent. (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 ABNF has been checked. The nits have been checked. (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 references in the document have been split into normative and informative. (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? IANA considerations exist within the document and are consistent with the body of the document. The document defines 4 new AVPs, registers 3 values in a registry established with RFC 5447 and one value for the Result-Code AVP. (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? The ABNF in the document is OK. Note that it uses the ABNF defined in RFC 3588 and hence the ABNF checking tools typically produce errors. (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: Technical Summary This specification defines the Diameter support for the Proxy Mobile IPv6 and the corresponding mobility service session setup. The policy information needed by the Proxy Mobile IPv6 is defined in mobile node's policy profile, which could be downloaded from the Diameter server to the Mobile Access Gateway once the mobile node attaches to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 Domain and performs access authentication. During the binding update exchange between the Mobile Access Gateway and the Local Mobility Anchor, the Local Mobility Anchor can interact with the Diameter server in order to update the remote policy store with the mobility session related information. Working Group Summary This document was progressed through the DIME working group without delays or problems. Document Quality This document is the product of the DIME working group. We would like to thank the NETLMM working group for their help. It is anticipated that vendors interested in Proxy Mobile IP are also going to implement the client side part of this protocol. The current implementation status of this specification is, however, unknown. Personnel Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD. |
|
2009-06-03
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested |
|
2009-04-16
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-02.txt |
|
2009-03-06
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-01.txt |
|
2009-01-14
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-00.txt |