[netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation
Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Wed, 07 May 2014 21:44 UTC
Return-Path: <bpatil1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1C31A03A6; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UfVIKg4Voubz; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x229.google.com (mail-oa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B221A0208; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id m1so2063316oag.0 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 07 May 2014 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4wGZ3Zj/QxtmVpdPtXDySzWXwwE/YFJI6tp2M6NXj04=; b=YJ4EEm753dnsrpEeuIptOPbfS8kpyW/SdGGcT7okEM0sFALQXHWowvC0jA8XouijS6 Yi+EghNbt0q2YkHLHytBR0YXrtqpDGUmEtp3BI6xO+E9g4Hs7u+Dmcwxo/ocrFmq8Q1Q HztmvCcBvYoIHKImmbmjnFgAznP03qdhozR55WcGMFZQKNSkUrYFmLYmOZXsyrQxjv0a hlQfLd6gxbuv23yUDiCjycKqFzLvWJ4aweM43/p6QLYO+wx5iEUogtsSTnsgGJlPzhmC b3c4jvJiBpbmCTcqZGKqp3JUcXJOk9EDJfOtdoYy+Fu+8em3K71BMzzw7mkHdUcB0yla ReVg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.44.135 with SMTP id e7mr12274143oem.63.1399499041748; Wed, 07 May 2014 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.161.42 with HTTP; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 16:44:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T0brLXCR6WJB6Q5SW0has7gnYynhMGghTvPtQtiqYJ+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11333b203f3b7c04f8d64324"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/TQd1IR7X9coO1O2rA_jR-ES6c24
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 07 May 2014 21:44:08 -0000
Hello, The Netext working group I-D: Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6 <draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-03.txt> has completed working group last call. The authors have addressed all review comments and submitted a revised I-D. It is now ready for IESG review and IETF last call. Please process accordingly. The protol writeup for this I-D is included below. Rgds, -Raj (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard (2) 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: Technical Summary: This document specifies a method to split the Control Plane (CP) and User Plane (UP) for a Proxy Mobile IPv6 based network infrastructure. Existing specifications allow a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to separate its control and user plane using the Alternate Care of address mobility option for IPv6, or Alternate IPv4 Care of Address option for IPv4. However, the current specification does not provide any mechanism allowing the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to perform an analogous functional split. To remedy that shortcoming, this document specifies a mobility option enabling a LMA to provide an alternate LMA address to be used for the bi-directional user plane traffic between the MAG and LMA. With this new option, a LMA will be able to use an IP address for its user plane which is different than the IP address used for the control plane. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? This document has sailed through the WG process because the problem that it aims to solve is clear and has strong consensus among the WG members. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 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 known implementations of the protocol exist at this time. No vendors have expressly stated a plan to implement this specification either. The I-D acknowledges the reviewers who have helped improve the I-D. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil Responsible AD: Brian Haberman (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the I-D prior to the WG last call and provided input to the authors which has been implemented in the version that is now ready for submission to the IESG. The document is clearly ready for IESG review and publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Broader reviews of this I-D are not required. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. No special concerns about this document. It has strong WG consensus. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. Each author has confirmed conformance to the provisions of BCP 78 and 79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures associated with this I-D have been filed. (9) 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 consensus is strong and the larger WG understand the specification and agrees with it. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No special concern w.r.t ID-nits Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document does not specify a MIB, media type or URI type. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. All normative references are published RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Publishing this I-D will not have an impact on the status of any existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section is clear and has sufficient information for IANA to complete the actions. The registry to be used is specified in this section as well. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries will be required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No XML code, BNF rules or MIB definitions have been specified in this document. -- Basavaraj Patil
- [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft… Basavaraj Patil