Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
RFC 7864

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: brian@innovationslab.net, netext@ietf.org, bpatil1+ietf@gmail.com, netext-chairs@ietf.org, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-18.txt)

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