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.