From nobody Tue Mar 1 05:48:00 2016 Return-Path: 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 D7C631B2CAA; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 05:47:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160301134759.4745.91824.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 05:47:59 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:48:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions of the IETF. Title : Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility Author : Carlos J. Bernardos Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2016-03-01 Abstract: Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces. This document describes extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are required to support network based flow mobility over multiple physical interfaces. This document updates RFC 5213. The extensions described in this document consist of the operations performed by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway to manage the prefixes assigned to the different interfaces of the mobile node, as well as how the forwarding policies are handled by the network to ensure consistent flow mobility management. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17 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. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Mar 1 07:53:23 2016 Return-Path: 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 B1D601B2DD7; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 07:53:20 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20160301155320.23737.98272.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 07:53:20 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@ietf.org Subject: [netext] Last Call: (Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org 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: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:53:20 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Network-Based Mobility Extensions WG (netext) to consider the following document: - 'Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces. This document describes extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are required to support network based flow mobility over multiple physical interfaces. This document updates RFC 5213. The extensions described in this document consist of the operations performed by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway to manage the prefixes assigned to the different interfaces of the mobile node, as well as how the forwarding policies are handled by the network to ensure consistent flow mobility management. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Wed Mar 2 03:46:17 2016 Return-Path: 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 9F7C31A0078; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 03:46:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160302114615.24375.20676.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 03:46:15 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-13: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:46:15 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-13: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I would have thought that noting that different layer 2 interfaces can have different security properties would be worth noting, even if we might not want to recommend that logical interfaces only group physical interfaces with similar security properties (which may be an interesting idea, but I can see it is also likely impractical today). I note that the secdir review [1] raises the same issue but I don't think there was a response to that. (If there was, apologies, I didn't find it;-) [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06352.html From nobody Thu Mar 3 03:44:29 2016 Return-Path: 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 8121F1A90B2; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 03:44:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Benoit Claise" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160303114426.26364.7741.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 03:44:26 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [netext] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-13: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 03 Mar 2016 11:44:26 -0000 Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-13: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As mentioned by Jürgen Schönwälder in this OPS-DIR: The 'grandfather' model for interfaces in the OPS world is RFC 2863 and RFC 7223 builds on that. I think your definitions are reasonably compatible (except that the other models do not restrict a logical interface to an IP interface). Perhaps it makes sense to discuss this related work or at least provide pointers, e.g., add a paragraph at the end of section 2 explaining how the terminology introduced here relates to RFC 2863 and RFC 7223? I also believe it would be a nice addition to the draft. From nobody Sun Mar 13 10:30:02 2016 Return-Path: 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 3620412D6BB; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:30:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.16.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160313173000.20274.95863.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 10:30:00 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: 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. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 17:30:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions of the IETF. Title : Logical-interface Support for Multi-access enabled IP Hosts Authors : Telemaco Melia Sri Gundavelli Filename : draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-14.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2016-03-13 Abstract: 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. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-14 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-14 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. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 14 07:49:08 2016 Return-Path: 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 To: "IETF-Announce" 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: Cc: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support@ietf.org, netext@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG , 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. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 From nobody Thu Mar 17 04:30:40 2016 Return-Path: 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 8A3B912D522; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:30:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160317113037.10560.4562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:30:37 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@ietf.org Subject: [netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: (with COMMENT) 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. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:30:37 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The shepherd write-up says: "Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? No. The relevance of flow mobility at the present time is suspect. While there is some adoption of Proxy Mobile IPv6 by the industry, there is no real demand for flow based mobility." I wondered why this is then being frozen into an RFC? That can be the right thing to do sometimes, but the above does make it seem questionable. So I'm asking:-) And did you consider if an experimental RFC would send the right signal? From nobody Thu Mar 17 05:54:33 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35C812DBDF for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 hgluB-uLaBDh for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C20A12DBF7 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l68so115766329wml.1 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:53:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QybZfRNuMCGRgwpDkpmpJsR8Z3bESRVUz++3KhZVY9w=; b=FBtmp7g/6EMZMq4ewph7h+ACNpkkX9FxBohBn/mS7eGkxggXn7Jw1FbBIySS++7zrq iYbiYJ6uBRC1JcYgXKvb1pPx/wygM7KvDn+89Lpw7r61iaCFfuYXeRMe30LI7GEFTZri CchUfK75mdswtlDs3Fgde5tIbSdZSLB86Q1DtP061mYkjJoNrWvQ8N8bWu+r53MqiEx/ zT5M8z1hNtAStk0KHtynu5kFiZz4qVIhOTWk0hI0BFicUE4w7IkaAS2tjIyy13G4gMu4 rnAIeUhas1f1MtsWUnDWaiTCzqdY3W1XlGh6IAD+VJGsmVf2MiAbEyth52jN/y7u/oyd FpLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date :in-reply-to:references:organization:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QybZfRNuMCGRgwpDkpmpJsR8Z3bESRVUz++3KhZVY9w=; b=DKYkprAbo2qnxQK/mCa1evVZU6JQOno1ftwDibB4yzugNxErymbQe+ZaG6YHWQ98ms 7Fjo82mDdAg51OLBy4F8PNsesF5qNvvlJKFmAaFBRzdxaoYXUrQ4S2UJ8oXNOTFq8uy3 H6rqipWfhtrsZ20bKXSe6lTdI9YYY5JH/4PRD5YjiicYC2EcpP1BMLIP2rwKDjazGOyQ /r0QW3QG2ATr9dY0G600tBwx8T+9tDk0UJ5lmXUGED91KNiY2p85uhZLP/Amu0igFRMT T+3VmIzwhFMTWDnTJhiNl9b/95PJmLuLuQGoY5t60CCnlVEd5Ala8/j4rHUXtpufDjj+ kO8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK+jmQbbF56j9yLXfpHhmkQySci52pJsxfFzmS+u/0td6+bFq8EzoAFUel1KXi0GmHF X-Received: by 10.194.114.166 with SMTP id jh6mr9809971wjb.39.1458219205991; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cjbc_dell.lan (82.158.203.25.dyn.user.ono.com. [82.158.203.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j18sm30246148wmd.2.2016.03.17.05.53.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1458219204.3682.59.camel@it.uc3m.es> From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:53:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20160317113037.10560.4562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20160317113037.10560.4562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.3-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es 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, 17 Mar 2016 12:54:32 -0000 Hi Stephen, On your comment, I must say that I have a different opinion from what is expressed in the shepherd write-up :D. I think there is a demand for flow mobility. Just to cite an example, the document is referenced in 3GPP TR 23.861 (Network based IP flow mobility). Thanks, Carlos On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 04:30 -0700, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria. > html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > COMMENT: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > The shepherd write-up says:  > >   "Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to >   implement the specification?  > >   No. The relevance of flow mobility at the present time is >   suspect. While there is some adoption of Proxy Mobile IPv6 by >   the industry, there is no real demand for flow based mobility." > > I wondered why this is then being frozen into an RFC? That can > be the right thing to do sometimes, but the above does make it > seem questionable. So I'm asking:-) And did you consider if an > experimental RFC would send the right signal? > > From nobody Fri Mar 18 07:04:06 2016 Return-Path: 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 5370A12D901; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:04:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160318140404.7523.45134.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:04:04 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18.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. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:04:04 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions of the IETF. Title : Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility Author : Carlos J. Bernardos Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2016-03-18 Abstract: Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces. This document describes extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are required to support network based flow mobility over multiple physical interfaces. This document updates RFC 5213. The extensions described in this document consist of the operations performed by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway to manage the prefixes assigned to the different interfaces of the mobile node, as well as how the forwarding policies are handled by the network to ensure consistent flow mobility management. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18 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. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Mar 24 07:06:16 2016 Return-Path: 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 2731912DB86; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160324140609.3960.80954.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:06:09 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: netext@ietf.org, The IESG , rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [netext] Protocol Action: 'Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18.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. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:09 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility' (draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18.txt) as Proposed Standard 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-pmipv6-flowmob/ Technical Summary: Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces. This document describes extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are required to support network based flow mobility over multiple physical interfaces. The extensions described in this document consist of the operations performed by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway to manage the prefixes assigned to the different interfaces of the mobile node, as well as how the forwarding policies are handled by the network to ensure consistent flow mobility management. Working Group Summary: The flow mobility specification has gone through multiple iterations and changed quite significantly during this time. The changes have primarily been in terms of simplifying the protocol. An alternate proposal was also submitted and discussed in the working group but consensus has been to adopt and move forward with this I-D. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? No. There are no known implementations of this protocol. Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? No. The relevance of flow mobility at the present time is suspect. While there is some adoption of Proxy Mobile IPv6 by the industry, there is no real demand for flow based mobility. 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? No. 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? The I-D does not specify a MIB or Media type etc. No such expert reviews have been necessary for this I-D. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil Responsible AD: Brian Haberman