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 |