Skip to main content

Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Localized Routing Problem Statement
RFC 6279

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-05-16
06 (System) Changed document authors from "Sangjin Jeong, Marco Liebsch" to "Sangjin Jeong, Marco Liebsch, Qin Wu"
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from netext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps@ietf.org to (None)
2011-06-22
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-06-21
06 (System) RFC published
2011-03-24
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-03-21
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-03-21
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-03-21
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-03-21
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-03-21
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-03-21
06 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-03-21
06 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2011-03-17
06 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-03-17
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation.
2011-03-17
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-16
06 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-16
06 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR Completed. Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida.
2011-03-16
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-16
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-16
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-16
06 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
The comment is based in part on the OPS-DIR review performed by Nevil Brownlee.

1) I do not think that the document needs …
[Ballot comment]
The comment is based in part on the OPS-DIR review performed by Nevil Brownlee.

1) I do not think that the document needs to be blocked for this, but I think that such document should also deal with the the Operational and Manageability considerations and include a section on this respect. At a minimum I would have expected some refering or estimation on the impact on traffic parameters in the network as local routing is designed to reduce latency and backhaul load. Also do we expect any extra extensions or attributes to be needed in the interaction between MAG and RADIUS servers?

2)  Missing also is any mention of scalability. This document describes the problem of optimising routing in a Local (i.e. single provider, or maybe 2~3 providers) setting. Scaling issues will need to be considered in an actual specification (clearly it will have to handle the maximum number of active mobile nodes).
2011-03-16
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-15
06 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
Please consider the comments in the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern
  on 7-Mar-2011.  I believe the improved clarity will be helpful.
2011-03-15
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-15
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-15
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-03-15
06 Jari Arkko State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-03-14
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-06.txt
2011-03-14
06 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-03-04
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla
2011-03-04
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla
2011-03-04
06 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-03-02
06 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Yoshifumi Nishida
2011-03-02
06 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Yoshifumi Nishida
2011-02-28
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2011-02-28
06 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <netext@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-05.txt> (PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Network-Based Mobility
Extensions WG (netext) to consider the following document:
- 'PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement'
  <draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-05.txt> as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-03-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps/

2011-02-28
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2011-02-28
06 Jari Arkko Ballot has been issued
2011-02-28
06 Jari Arkko Created "Approve" ballot
2011-02-28
06 Jari Arkko Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-03-17
2011-02-28
06 Jari Arkko Last Call was requested
2011-02-28
06 Jari Arkko State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2011-02-28
06 Jari Arkko Last Call text changed
2011-02-28
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-02-28
06 (System) Last call text was added
2011-02-28
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-02-28
06 Jari Arkko State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-02-23
06 Cindy Morgan
(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?

Document shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Yes, I have reviewed this version of the document and believe it is
ready for IESG review and 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?

The document has had adequate reviews by key WG members.
I do not have any concerns regarding the depth or breadth of the
reviews received.

(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 concerns regarding the reviews so far and do not believe additional
reviews are needed.

(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.

I do not have any specific concerns at this time regarding this
document. The problem statement has been presented and discussed at
length in previous WG meetings and on the mailing list. I am not aware
of any IPR disclosures related to this I-D.


(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 solid WG consensus behind this document. I believe the
majority of WG members understand and agree with 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 threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been expressed
regarding this I-D.


(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. I have run the I-D through the ID nits tool and found no issues.


(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 into normative and informative sections.


(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?

This document does not require any IANA action. It is a problem state
description.


(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 Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Proxy Mobile IPv6 is the IETF standard for network-based mobility
management. In Proxy Mobile IPv6, mobile nodes are topologically
anchored at a Local Mobility Anchor, which forwards all data
for registered mobile nodes. The setup and maintenance of localized
routing, which allows forwarding of data packets between mobile nodes
and correspondent nodes directly without involvement of the Local
Mobility Anchor in forwarding, is not considered. This document
describes the problem space of localized routing in Proxy Mobile
IPv6.

There is strong WG consensus regarding the problem statement and the
need for a solution to deal with localized routing.
The document describes the localized routing problem in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 deployments and hence not relevant from an implementation
perspective.
2011-02-23
06 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-02-23
06 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Basavaraj Patil (basavaraj.patil@nokia.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2011-02-22
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-05.txt
2011-01-12
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-04.txt
2010-07-12
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-03.txt
2010-01-22
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-02.txt
2009-10-26
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-01.txt
2009-09-21
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-00.txt