[Mip6] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt
Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Mon, 14 February 2005 08:35 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04423 for <mip6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:35:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D0c2U-0003oC-PL for mip6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:57:07 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D0bce-0002jt-7H; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:30:24 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D0bbl-0002fh-I5 for mip6@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:29:29 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04119; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:29:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D0bwZ-0003hn-24; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:50:59 -0500
Received: from esdks003.ntc.nokia.com (esdks003.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.158]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j1E8TGW22648; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:29:16 +0200 (EET)
X-Scanned: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:28:07 +0200 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.34 2004121512 - RELEASE
Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks003.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id j1E8S7dh021498; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:28:07 +0200
Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks003.ntc.nokia.com 00D4psEz; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:27:40 EET
Received: from daebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (daebh002.americas.nokia.com [10.241.35.122]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j1E86tM12312; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:06:55 +0200 (EET)
Received: from daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) by daebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:06:51 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:06:49 -0600
Message-ID: <456943D540CFC14A8D7138E64843F85308C7F6@daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcUSbCJq66yGMDNoSgOTxL3ZAPK5GQ==
To: narten@us.ibm.com, margaret@thingmagic.com, ietf-secretariat@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2005 08:06:51.0854 (UTC) FILETIME=[23EEAEE0:01C5126C]
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: gdommety@cisco.com, mip6@ietf.org
Subject: [Mip6] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt
X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mip6.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 67c1ea29f88502ef6a32ccec927970f0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello, The following I-D has completed WG last call and we would like to request the ADs to review the I-D and progress it forward. Details below: WG: MIP6 Title: Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt Status requested: Standards track 1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes. The chairs have reviewed it not only for technical correctness but also for spelling and grammar. 2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes. The I-D has been reviewed sufficiently by WG members. As WG chairs, we do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of reviews that this I-D has had. The I-D is fairly straightforward and does not have a great deal of complexity. 3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No. The I-D proposes the use of identifiers such as NAI, FQDN etc. in the mobility header of MIP6 signaling messages. There is not a need for broader review at this time. Especially since a similar concept is used today in MIP4. 4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway. No specific concerns/issues. It should be noted that this I-D is needed by 3GPP2 for Revision D of the TIA-835 specification which is currently being worked on. 5) 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? The WG as a whole understands the need for this I-D and there is strong support for standardizing it. 6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about. There have been no appeals against this I-D. 7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html). Yes. 8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative, and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) The document includes 3 normative references. Of these 2 are already RFCs. The 3rd is a reference to RFC2486bis (Radext WG) which is currently in state: AD Followup. 9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a writeup section with the following sections: - Technical Summary Mobile IPv6 defines a new Mobility header which is used by mobile nodes, correspondent nodes, and home agents in all messaging related to the creation and management of bindings. Mobile IPv6 nodes need the capability to identify themselves using an identity other than the default home IP address. Some examples of identifiers include NAI, FQDN, IMSI, MSISDN, etc. This document defines a new mobility option that can be used by Mobile IP6 entities to identify themselves in messages containing a mobility header. - Working Group Summary The working group has discussed the need for such an identifier at several WG meetings as well as on the mailing list. The need for alternate identifiers such as NAI, IMSI etc. arises from the deployment needs of Mobile IPv6 by 3GPP2. 3GPP2 specification 835-Rev D is currently being worked on and this feature has been identified as a necessity for incorporating Mobile IPv6 in the standard. WG LC has been completed. No major issues were identified during the last call process. - Protocol Quality No known implementations of the protocol exist at this time. However there exist plans to implement this protocol since it is required for deployment in 3GPP2 based networks. Revision D of TIA 835 specifies the need for such an identifier to be included in the mobility header of the registration messages. -Chairs _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list Mip6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
- [Mip6] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-m… Basavaraj.Patil