Skip to main content

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