Distributed Mobility Management: Current Practices and Gap Analysis
draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-01-15
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-12-17
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-12-10
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-11-28
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2014-11-11
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-11-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-11-07
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-11-07
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-11-07
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-11-07
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-11-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-11-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-11-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-11-07
|
09 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-11-07
|
09 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-11-06
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-11-06
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft and addressing my comments. |
2014-11-06
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot comment text updated for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-11-04
|
09 | Naveen Khan | New revision available |
2014-10-30
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-10-30
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-10-30
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-10-30
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-10-29
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-10-29
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Nice document; thanks. I think that, in addition to 7333, 5213 and 6275 are also normative references, as they're used for terminology. |
2014-10-29
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-10-29
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. It is very readable. |
2014-10-29
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-10-28
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. 1. It looks good, but I'm wondering if a mention of privacy could be added. This … [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. 1. It looks good, but I'm wondering if a mention of privacy could be added. This should have been in RFC7333, but it looks like that didn't happen (Stephen recommended some text in his comments to add it in that draft, now RFC). Maybe this was discussed and there was a reason not to add it. I don't remember the outcome, so I'll make a couple of suggestions of where I think it might be important in this draft. In Gap 1-3, does the listed solution (or others for address discovery) lead to privacy concerns that should be mentioned? Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery (DHAAD): the use of the home agent (H) flag in Router Advertisements (which indicates that the router sending the Router Advertisement is also functioning as a Mobile IPv6 home agent on the link) and the MAP option in Router Advertisements defined by HMIPv6. Also, I don't see a mention of privacy in this gap analysis or RFC7333. Could you add it in 5.7. Security considerations - REQ7? I know this comes from RFC7333, so that would have the text Change from: In addition, with security taken into consideration early in the design, a DMM solution cannot introduce new security risks, or amplify existing security risks, that cannot be mitigated by existing security protocols and mechanisms. To: In addition, with security taken into consideration early in the design, a DMM solution cannot introduce new security risks or privacy concerns, or amplify existing security risks, that cannot be mitigated by existing security protocols and mechanisms. 2. In Section 6, Security Considerations of this draft, should there be a reference to RFC7333 for the detailed requirements? Thank you. |
2014-10-28
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-10-27
|
08 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-10-23
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2014-10-23
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2014-10-21
|
08 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2014-10-10
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-10-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-10-30 |
2014-10-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Ballot has been issued |
2014-10-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-10-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-10
|
08 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2014-09-29
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-09-29
|
08 | Anthony Chan | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-09-29
|
08 | Anthony Chan | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-08.txt |
2014-09-25
|
07 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-09-25
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2014-09-18
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2014-09-18
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2014-09-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-09-16
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-09-12
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
2014-09-12
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Distributed Mobility Management WG (dmm) to consider the following document: - 'Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis' as Informational RFC 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 2014-09-25. 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 This document analyzes deployment practices of existing IP mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. It then identifies existing limitations when compared to the requirements defined for a distributed mobility management solution. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Last call was requested |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-09-11
|
07 | Brian Haberman | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-09-10
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-09-10
|
07 | Anthony Chan | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-07.txt |
2014-07-31
|
06 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2014-07-21
|
06 | Brian Haberman | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? The document aims for Informational. Since the document discusses generic current deployment practices and identified gaps in the light of DMM, the document does not define any protocol or even guidelines for new types of deployments. The RFC type is indicated in the document header page. (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 The present document analyzes deployment practices of existing IP Mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. The analyzed IP level (i.e., layer 3) mobility protocols include those developed by IETF and also those developed by other SDOs that have been widely deployed. Due the plurality of different mobility enabling protocol and solutions, the analysis has been intentionally limited to IP level (i.e., layer 3) protocol that typically are based on some sort of tunneling solution. The document then identifies existing limitations when compared to the distributed mobility management requirements defined in draft-ietf-dmm-requirements for a distributed mobility management solution. On the existing IP mobility enabling architectures (outside mobile VPNs or IETF defined IP mobility solutions), the document considers only the 3GPP GPRS/EPS system and service provider Wi-Fi due their dominant positions in the market place. Working Group Summary The document creation was not entirely smooth as seen from the timeline. There are several aspects in the existing deployments making use of IP mobility (such as the 3GPP GPRS/EPS) that already today include many enhancements on the deployment & product feature level that can be seen as a step towards distributed mobility management. The line between what is a gap and what can be achieved with today's tools was not always exactly clear. However, the WG has an agreement on the gaps described in this document and the fact that the most prevalent solutions that exist are not defined in IETF and are specific to certain system architectures. Document Quality There are no implementations of this document, since it only presents an analysis of existing protocols and deployments to what is intended to be achieved with distributed mobility management. The document has received multiple thorough reviews in the WG. Personnel Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Brian Haberman (briad@innivationslab.net) is the AD. (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. The document shepherd has done multiple reviews on the document during its lifetime. The latest review is done before the proto write-up submission and the document shepherd thinks the document is ready to leave the WG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? From shepherd's point of view no. However, it is obvious there are differing views outside IP mobility community on the entire topic so the IETF LC probably raises new comments and proposals to enhance the document, since the distributed mobility management enters other areas in IP communication that have not been typical for IP Mobility protocols (such as routing or specific attributes to make use of better proximity of mobility anchors). (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. No. (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. There are few concerns. First, quite few gaps could be (and are in most parts) already solved within specific system architectures using technologies developed outside IETF. These have been discussed in the WG and acknowledged. The WG still saw a benefit to pursue solutions that are independent of a specific system architecture or link technology. (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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPRs declared. (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 document represents the consensus of the active part of the WG. (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. IDnits only reports about the document creation date being in past and spacing issues in the text. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None needed. (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. (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. No. (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). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (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. None. (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. None needed. |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | State Change Notice email list changed to dmm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-07-17
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-07-12
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | No further comments received. WGLC #3 passed ok. |
2014-07-12
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2014-07-05
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Folks, This email starts a one week WGLC #3 for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-06. The WGLC ends 12th July 2014 EOB (EEST). Silence is accounted as an acceptance … Folks, This email starts a one week WGLC #3 for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-06. The WGLC ends 12th July 2014 EOB (EEST). Silence is accounted as an acceptance for the content. Once the WGLC passes the next step is shipping the I-D out of the WG and we are then ready to move forward progressing the new WG work. - Jouni (as a DMM co-chair) |
2014-07-04
|
06 | Juan-Carlos Zúñiga | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-06.txt |
2014-07-04
|
05 | Anthony Chan | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-05.txt |
2014-06-01
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-01
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-01
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-01
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-01
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-01
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-05-26
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Restating the previous since tags seemed to no change: Folks, This email starts a one week WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-04. Issue you comments to the … Restating the previous since tags seemed to no change: Folks, This email starts a one week WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-04. Issue you comments to the mailing list and place possible tickets to the issue tracker. There are quite a few changed mainly to tackle Charlie's comments. The WGLC ends 2ns June 2014 EOB (EEST). Silence is accounted as an acceptance for the content. - Jouni (as a DMM co-chair) |
2014-05-26
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2014-05-25
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Folks, This email starts a one week WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-04. Issue you comments to the mailing list and place possible tickets to the issue … Folks, This email starts a one week WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-04. Issue you comments to the mailing list and place possible tickets to the issue tracker. There are quite a few changed mainly to tackle Charlie's comments. The WGLC ends 2ns June 2014 EOB (EEST). Silence is accounted as an acceptance for the content. - Jouni (as a DMM co-chair) |
2014-05-25
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2014-05-25
|
04 | Dapeng Liu | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-04.txt |
2014-04-02
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Charlie's comments http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01098.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01091.html |
2014-04-02
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2014-03-13
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | WGLC #1 starts 13th March and ends EOB CET+1 27th March. |
2014-03-13
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-02-17
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Document shepherd changed to Jouni Korhonen |
2014-02-17
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Will got to WGLC after IETF#89. |
2014-02-17
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2014-02-14
|
03 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-03.txt |
2013-10-21
|
02 | Dapeng Liu | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02.txt |
2013-07-24
|
01 | Jouni Korhonen | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2013-06-17
|
01 | Juan-Carlos Zúñiga | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt |
2013-02-11
|
00 | Pierrick Seite | New version available: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-00.txt |