NSIS Protocol Operation in Mobile Environments
RFC 5980

[Ballot comment]
Review by Ari Keränen:

Just one somewhat technical comment:

4.3. NATFW NSLP

  In this process, the obsoleted state in the old path is not
  explicitly released because the state can be released by timer
  expiration.

This may have some mobility specific security implications that could be mentioned in the security considerations section.


Then nits and editorial issues:

NSIS abbreviation should be expanded in the abstract (but probably not in the title).


1. Introduction

  Each specific service has its own NSLP
  protocol; currently there two standardized NSLP protocols, the QoS

s/there/there are/


2. Requirements Notation and Terminology

  A Crossover Node is a node that for a given function is a merging
  point of two or more paths belong to flows of the same session along
  which states are installed.

s/belong/belonging/ ?


3. Challenges with Mobility

  application state, and removing any useless state, while localizing
  the signaling to only the affect part of the network.

s/to only the affect/only to the affected/ ?


4.2. QoS NSLP

  CRN in this document (setp(2) in Figure 1), where a state is

s/setp/step/


5. Interaction with Mobile IPv4/v6

  link properties, esp. additional overhead due to mobility header

s/esp./especially/ ?

  proper interface addresses in the NLI in order to ensure that a

Expand NLI

  include a combined NAT/FW message to cover both RTT and BU/BA

Expand RTT

  After that the NAT/FW procedure more likes QoS NSLP
  (perform another NAT/FW signaling after BU).

What does it mean when "NAT/FW procedure likes QoS NSLP"?

[Ballot comment]
This is an example of a well-written document that is sometimes hard to parse becuse of small issues with the use of English. I know that the RFC Editor will make a pass for this type of issue, but it would have been (could still be!) good to get a native speaker from the WG to take an editorial pass on the document. The risks associated with the RFC Editor correcting text without the knowledge of the technical details are considerable.

[Ballot discuss]
A small but important point that can be fixed in an RFC Editor note.

Section 1

  currently there two standardized NSLP protocols, the QoS
  NSLP [draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp], and the NAT/Firewall NSLP
  [draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw]

s/standardized/specified/

[Ballot comment]
Please consider the Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 2010-06-17.

  Minor issues:

  1. Section 6 says that detailed operations are out-of-scope, yet
    Section 6.1.1 provides what look like detailed operations.

  2. Appendix A looks redundant after reading the rest of the document.

  Nits/editorial comments:

  1. All over the document there are abbreviations that are not
    specified in full or not specified the first time used.  Examples
    are MRI, MN, CN, AR. NR, SII, HA, FA, QNE, QSPEC, RSN.  I suggest
    that the editor will go through the document and specify all
    abbreviations.

  2. In Sections 4.2 and 4.3 in the beginning instead of the following
    figure suggest to write Figure 1 or Figure 2. I also think that
    the flow description should be enumerated using the numbers from
    Figure 1.

  3. In section 4.2, "the MN must get to know" maybe say "The MN needs
    to acquire".

  4. Section 5.3.1 says: "The second one is otherwise, and here the
    tunneling path is transparent as a logical link to NSIS signaling
    [draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel]."  I am not sure what is meant by "the
    second one is otherwise".  Please clarify.

  5. In Section 6.1.1, there is a figure without a number.  There are
    Figures 8 and 9 and in the middle this one with no number.

  6. In Section 4.4.2, it says "(how this is can be noticed is out of
    scope of NSIS, yet, e.g., GIST will eventually no this through
    undelivered messages)" should be "know" and not "no".

The draft "NSIS Protocols operation in Mobile Environments" has
been reviewed by the NSIS WG and is now ready for AD and IESG
review.

I-D:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-17.txt


(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?

The document shepherd is Martin Stiemerling
(martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu).
Personally reviewed and it is ready for IESG review.

(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?

The document had adequate review from key WG members.
No concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

(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?

No.

(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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No.

(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?

There is a solid WG consensus behind the document.

(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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?

Yes, all ID nits are satisfied.

(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].

References are split and are all ok.

(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 suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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?

There is an IANA considerations section, but the document
does not specify any request to IANA.

(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?

There are no such sections.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.


Mobility of an IP-based node affects routing paths, and as a result,
can have a significant effect on the protocol operation and state
management. This draft discusses the effects mobility can cause to
the NSIS protocol suite, and how the protocols operate in different
scenarios, with mobility management protocols.


Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

This document is an outcome of the NSIS WG.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

The document is a supplemental document to the NSIS protocols
with an informational purpose.