Mobile Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-09

[Ballot comment]
A quick review reveals nothing of significance for applications that I can find.

I do wonder about why this is Experimental. Seems to me it could have been a Proposed Standard, and there's nothing in the document to indicate any "experimenting" that's truly going to be done or what the WG expects to discover from this "experiment". But if the AD is OK with it, I'm not going to hold it up.

[Ballot comment]
I have a couple of questions about text clarity. Please consider them, along with any other comments you receive from other reviewers.

And I should say that MIP/PMIP drafts I've often read have been dense for me, and this one is clearer than most - thank you for that.

4.3.2.  Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree)

  Source handover management in PIM phase one admits low complexity and
  remains transparent to receivers.  In addition, the source register
  tunnel management of PIM is a fast protocol operation and little
  overhead is induced thereof. 
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I didn't understand this text clearly. Is it saying something like "little overhead is introduced"?

7.  Security Considerations

  In addition to proper authorization checks
  of MNs, rate controls at routing agents and replicators MAY be
  required to protect the agents and the downstream networks.  In
  ^^^^^^^^

is this "may be needed"? The passive voice doesn't make the text easy to parse (and I'm thinking this MAY is not a 2119 MAY, but that's a separate issue).

  particular, MLD proxy implementations at MAGs SHOULD carefully
  procure for automatic multicast state extinction on the departure of
  ^^^^^^^

This word doesn't fit (a quick google of online directionaries pointed toward "procure" as obtaining something by special effort, for example). I wondered if you meant "probe", but I'm guessing.

  MNs, as mobile multicast listeners in the PMIPv6 domain will in
  general not actively terminate group membership prior to departure.

  Consequently,
  implementations of peering-enabled proxies SHOULD take particular
  care on maintaining (varying) IP configurations at the downstream in
                      ^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand what "varying" means in this context (my first guess was that it was being used as a synonym for "maintaining", which didn't work). Is it needed at all?

  a reliable and timely manner (see [RFC6224] for requirements on
  PMIPv6-compliant implementations of MLD proxies).

[Ballot comment]
I have a couple of questions about text clarity. Please consider them, along with any other comments you receive from other reviewers.

4.3.2.  Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree)

  Source handover management in PIM phase one admits low complexity and
  remains transparent to receivers.  In addition, the source register
  tunnel management of PIM is a fast protocol operation and little
  overhead is induced thereof. 
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I didn't understand this text clearly. Is it saying something like "little overhead is introduced"?

7.  Security Considerations

  In addition to proper authorization checks
  of MNs, rate controls at routing agents and replicators MAY be
  required to protect the agents and the downstream networks.  In
  ^^^^^^^^

is this "may be needed"? The passive voice doesn't make the text easy to parse (and I'm thinking this MAY is not a 2119 MAY, but that's a separate issue).

  particular, MLD proxy implementations at MAGs SHOULD carefully
  procure for automatic multicast state extinction on the departure of
  ^^^^^^^

This word doesn't fit (a quick google of online directionaries pointed toward "procure" as obtaining something by special effort, for example). I wondered if you meant "probe", but I'm guessing.

  MNs, as mobile multicast listeners in the PMIPv6 domain will in
  general not actively terminate group membership prior to departure.

  Consequently,
  implementations of peering-enabled proxies SHOULD take particular
  care on maintaining (varying) IP configurations at the downstream in
                      ^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand what "varying" means in this context (my first guess was that it was being used as a synonym for "maintaining", which didn't work). Is it needed at all?

  a reliable and timely manner (see [RFC6224] for requirements on
  PMIPv6-compliant implementations of MLD proxies).

[Ballot comment]
I have a couple of questions about text clarity. Please consider them, along with any other comments you receive from other reviewers.

4.3.1.  Routing Information Base for PIM-SM

4.3.2.  Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree)

  Source handover management in PIM phase one admits low complexity and
  remains transparent to receivers.  In addition, the source register
  tunnel management of PIM is a fast protocol operation and little
  overhead is induced thereof. 
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I didn't understand this text clearly. Is it saying something like "little overhead is introduced"?

7.  Security Considerations

  In addition to proper authorization checks
  of MNs, rate controls at routing agents and replicators MAY be
  required to protect the agents and the downstream networks.  In
  ^^^^^^^^

is this "may be needed"? The passive voice doesn't make the text easy to parse (and I'm thinking this MAY is not a 2119 MAY, but that's a separate issue).

  particular, MLD proxy implementations at MAGs SHOULD carefully
  procure for automatic multicast state extinction on the departure of
  ^^^^^^^

This word doesn't fit (a quick google of online directionaries pointed toward "procure" as obtaining something by special effort, for example). I wondered if you meant "probe", but I'm guessing.

  MNs, as mobile multicast listeners in the PMIPv6 domain will in
  general not actively terminate group membership prior to departure.

  Consequently,
  implementations of peering-enabled proxies SHOULD take particular
  care on maintaining (varying) IP configurations at the downstream in
                      ^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand what "varying" means in this context (my first guess was that it was being used as a synonym for "maintaining", which didn't work). Is it needed at all?

  a reliable and timely manner (see [RFC6224] for requirements on
  PMIPv6-compliant implementations of MLD proxies).

(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 specifies a solution for multicast sources using PMIP which
is an area with no operational experience and no current deployment. It
is expected to be deployed in the future, but at this point the use and
the solution is of a fairly experimental nature.

(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 describes a base solution and an experimental protocol
to support of mobile multicast senders in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains.

Working Group Summary:

The document has broad support in the working group.
There was several comments on the mailing list during the working group last call. All comments have been addressed in this latest draft. We have complete consensus for progressing this document.

Document Quality:

The document has been thoroughly reviewed by several people in the
working group and parts of the solution has recently been implemented

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Stig Venaas, multimob co-chair, Brian Haberman 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.

I have reviewed this document every iteration and I think it is in good
shape.

(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.

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.

I have no concerns about this document.

(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 no IPR

(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

(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 consensus is solid. We had many individuals, from a variety of companies, indicate their support and offered comments.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.

One unused reference. The RFC Editor will hopefully remove it.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not Applicable

(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.

Publication of this document does not change 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).

There are no IANA considerations for 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.

No new registry.

(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.

Not Applicable.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-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 authors prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment isn't accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Mobile Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Multicast Mobility WG (multimob)
to consider the following document:
- 'Mobile Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains'
  as Experimental 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 2014-02-24. 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


  Multicast communication can be enabled in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains
  via the Local Mobility Anchors by deploying MLD proxy functions at
  Mobile Access Gateways, via a direct traffic distribution within an
  ISP's access network, or by selective route optimization schemes.
  This document describes a base solution and an experimental protocol
  to support of mobile multicast senders in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains
  for all three scenarios.  Protocol optimizations for synchronizing
  PMIPv6 with PIM, as well as a peering function for MLD Proxies are
  defined.  Mobile sources always remain agnostic of multicast mobility
  operations.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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 specifies a solution for multicast sources using PMIP which
is an area with no operational experience and no current deployment. It
is expected to be deployed in the future, but at this point the use and
the solution is of a fairly experimental nature.

(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 describes a base solution and an experimental protocol
to support of mobile multicast senders in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains.



For some applications, it might be useful to have a way to specify the explicit path along which the PIM join is propagated. This document defines a new Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV to build multicast trees via an explicit path sent in the PIM join.

Working Group Summary:

The document has broad support in the working group.
There was several comments on the mailing list during the working group last call. All comments have been addressed in this latest draft. We have complete consensus for progressing this document.

Document Quality:

The document has been thoroughly reviewed by several people in the
working group and parts of the solution has recently been implemented

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Stig Venaas, multimob co-chair, Brian Haberman 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.

I have reviewed this document every iteration and I think it is in good
shape.

(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.

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.

I have no concerns about this document.

(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 no IPR

(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

(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 consensus is solid. We had many individuals, from a variety of companies, indicate their support and offered comments.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.

One unused reference. The RFC Editor will hopefully remove it.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not Applicable

(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.

Publication of this document does not change 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).

There are no IANA considerations for 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.

No new registry.

(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.

Not Applicable.