Re: [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip

Alexandru Petrescu <> Thu, 25 July 2013 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A80421F99F7 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3YkZDWcgkueG for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AFE21F9A06 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r6P84PPY006710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:04:25 +0200
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6P84Prs018494 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:04:25 +0200 (envelope-from
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r6P8445M015438 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:04:25 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:04:03 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:04:35 -0000

Hello Raj, NETEXTers,

Please allow me to comment on a few points below.

Le 25/07/2013 00:20, Basavaraj Patil a écrit :
> Hello,
> The Netext working group has completed the working group last call
> for I-D: Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
> <draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-09>.
> The I-D is now ready for IESG review and approval. Below is the
> completed proto writeup.
> -Chairs
> (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. Type of RFC is indicated in the title page
> header.
> (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 specification defines extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol
> for allowing a mobile router in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to obtain
>  delegated IP prefixes for its attached mobile networks.  The
> mobility entities in the network will provide network-based mobility
>  management support for those delegated IP prefixes just as how IP
> mobility support is provided for the mobile node's home address.
> Even as the mobile router performs a handoff and changes its network
> point of attachment, mobility support is ensured for all the
> delegated IP prefixes and for all the IP nodes in the mobile network
> that use IP address configuration from those delegated IP prefixes.
> Working Group Summary:
> The working group has discussed this I-D at length. Comments by
> Alexandru Petrescu
> (
> claimed that the proposal was similar to work being done in other
> working groups. However the working group members believe that this
> extension is essential for Proxy Mobile IPv6 and hence needs to be
> published on its own.

YEs, this summarizes what was discussed.

I would like to reiterate the points I would like to understand: what is
the goal of this draft?

If the goal is to support network mobility in a 3GPP domain, then until
DHCPv6-PD gets deployed, that is already achieved with 64share (see
v6ops WG for the item 64share and reports of widespread implementations).

Why Mobile Routers and moving networks at all, instead of simply mobile
terminals?  Are the deployments more of a kind of personal mobile
hotspot?  Or more vehicular networks?

These are the points I am trying to make.


> (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?
> All authors have confirmed that they are in full conformance of BCP
> 78 and 79. An IPR disclosure has been provided to the WG. See:
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.
> Yes. IPR disclosure has been filed. The WG was notified about this
> IPR disclosure and a last call conducted. The WG did not have any
> comments or concerns expressed regarding the IPR disclosure.

For sake of completeness, let me add a few points here.

First, I do not have concerns regarding advancing this draft given the
current known IPR situation, as long as the licensing scheme is the
typical practice at IETF (RAND or similar).  For that I may need to
discuss with our local attorney.

Second, for doubt, in my non-lawyer interpretation, I wonder whether
there may be other IPR documents which may apply to the use of Mobile
Routers in a PMIPv6 domain, e.g.:


Finally, here I am with our IPR department in the process of applying
for another intellectual property, which may be relevant.  The draft is
draft-petrescu-netext-pmip-nemo-01.  The advancement status of this
application is confidential at this time.