[netext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gundavelli-netext-rfc6757bis-00.txt

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Thu, 03 July 2014 05:41 UTC

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-gundavelli-netext-rfc6757bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPln22QR+RKNl34Umb7pAgGbXZ/JuNtHEA
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 05:41:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CFDA3580.148DE5%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140703051441.28953.7476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <57B9C7FE9F94CB439FCCBD12F59588DE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/T3xfsHlLpcEoQtxTSIkxunTzCZU
Subject: [netext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gundavelli-netext-rfc6757bis-00.txt
Precedence: list

WG:

RFC-6757/Access Network Information option was published in Oct 2012. Over
the last 2 year there were many architectural efforts around LTE-WLAN
interworking, mobility in Community Wi-Fi architectures, Mobile Private
Networks over LTE/SatRAN architectures and few other efforts. In all of
these architectures, the ability to notify the access-network parameters
from an access gateway to a mobile anchors (over any mobility protocol)
proved to be much more valuable than we thought 4 years back when we first
drafted the -00 version. Also, we did find few issues and gaps with the
current RFC6757 sub-options. One example being, we missed the "Altitude"
parameter in the Geo-Location sub-option. "Who cares about that
Z-axis/Altitude, we are so down to earth and so Long/Lat is sufficient" ..
so we though.. but we soon realized there are skyscrapers all around :)
Not that we did not think about that, but we made an error in assuming it
won't be needed.  There were few other minor nits that few found in the
spec. So, we wanted to revise the spec and fix the issues in the spec.

This is FYI. We are not sure yet how this draft will be moved, on AD track
or some other group, that needs to be decided.

Regards
Sri

On 7/2/14 10:14 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
wrote:

>
>A new version of I-D, draft-gundavelli-netext-rfc6757bis-00.txt
>has been successfully submitted by Sri Gundavelli and posted to the
>IETF repository.
>
>Name:		draft-gundavelli-netext-rfc6757bis
>Revision:	00
>Title:		Access Network Identifier (ANI) Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
>Document date:	2014-07-02
>Group:		Individual Submission
>Pages:		21
>URL:            
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gundavelli-netext-rfc6757bis-00.
>txt
>Status:         
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundavelli-netext-rfc6757bis/
>Htmlized:       
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gundavelli-netext-rfc6757bis-00
>
>
>Abstract:
>   The local mobility anchor in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) domain is
>   able to provide access-network- and access-operator-specific handling
>   or policing of the mobile node traffic using information about the
>   access network to which the mobile node is attached.  This
>   specification defines a mechanism and a related mobility option for
>   carrying the access network identifier and the access operator
>   identification information from the mobile access gateway to the
>   local mobility anchor over Proxy Mobile IPv6.  This document
>   obsoletes RFC 6757.
>
>                  
>        
>
>
>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>submission
>until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
>The IETF Secretariat
>

[netext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-g… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)