Document Action: 'Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6' to Experimental RFC

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Mon, 13 September 2010 17:54 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6' to Experimental RFC
Message-ID: <20100913175403.32524.60661.idtracker@localhost>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:54:03 -0700
Cc: mipshop mailing list <mipshop@ietf.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, mipshop chair <mipshop-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Precedence: list

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
  <draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6-07.txt> as an Experimental RFC

This document is the product of the Mobility for IP: Performance,
Signaling and Handoff Optimization Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Ralph Droms.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6/



Technical Summary

   This document specifies a mechanism which enhances Proxy Mobile IPv6
   protocol signaling to support the creation of a transient binding
   cache entry which is used to optimize the performance of dual radio
   handover, as well as single radio handover.

Working Group Summary

   This is a product of the MIPSHOP WG. See below for more information.

Document Quality

   The document has been discussed on the MIPSHOP WG mailing list
   and was subject to considerable debate. The core of the debate
   centered around the need for host support for this mechanism.

Personnel

   Document Shepherd is Vijay Devarapalli, and the responsible
   Area Director is Jari Arkko.

RFC Editor Note

   Please add the following text to the end of the first paragraph
   in the Security Considerations section:

   NEW:
   No new security considerations are introduced in addition to
   those in RFC 5213. Thus, the security considerations described 
   throughout [RFC5213] apply here as well. 

   Also, change this:
   OLD:
   Where no support from the link layer exists and no such
   indication can be provided to the nMAG by the network, the host
   and the network may need to inform each other about the intended
   movement.  The method by which this is accomplished is outside the
   scope of this specification. 
   NEW:
   Where no support from the link layer exists and no such indication can
   be provided to the nMAG by the network, the nMAG MUST assume that the
   host is incapable of this mode of operation, and employ standard 
   behavior as specified in RFC 5213. In other words, nMAG initiates
   a regular RFC5213 handover.

Document Action: 'Transient Binding for Proxy Mob… The IESG
Document Action: 'Transient Binding for Proxy Mob… The IESG