[netext] Document Action: 'Logical-interface Support for Multi-access enabled IP Hosts' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-14.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Mon, 14 March 2016 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EDB12DBCC; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 07:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
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>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.16.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160314144900.16952.22361.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 07:49:00 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/B4J5QwSPX__-hzzES1tomQi3ucY>
Cc: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support@ietf.org, netext@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [netext] Document Action: 'Logical-interface Support for Multi-access enabled IP Hosts' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-14.txt)
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:49:00 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Logical-interface Support for Multi-access enabled IP Hosts'
  (draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-14.txt) as Informational
RFC

This document is the product of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Terry Manderson.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support/





Technical Summary:

   A Logical-interface is a software semantic internal to the host
   operating system.  This semantic is available in all popular
   operating systems and is used in various protocol implementations.
   The Logical-interface support is required on the mobile node attached
   to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, for leveraging various network-based
   mobility management features such as inter-technology handoffs,
   multihoming and flow mobility support.  This document explains the
   operational details of Logical-interface construct and the specifics
   on how the link-layer implementations hide the physical interfaces
   from the IP stack and from the network nodes on the attached access
   networks.  Furthermore, this document identifies the applicability of
   this approach to various link-layer technologies and analyzes the
   issues around it when used in conjunction with various mobility
   management features.


Working Group Summary:

The working group has struggled to arrive at consensus on whether this
document adds value to the Proxy Mobile IP protocol. The concept of a
logical interface is well understood in networking circles and hence
there has not been much interest in getting this published. However
after much debate the working group has agreed that it would help the
community to publish this I-D as an informational document. 


Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

Implementations of logical interfaces are common in most operating
systems. 

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
the specification? 

Not Applicable.

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?

No. This document does not specify any MIB or media type etc.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
AD: Brian Haberman