idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 219. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 230. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 237. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 243. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 21, 2007) is 6266 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3775 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MIP6 Working Group V. Devarapalli 3 Internet-Draft Azaire Networks 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Patel 5 Expires: August 25, 2007 K. Leung 6 Cisco 7 February 21, 2007 9 Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option 10 draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2007. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 41 Abstract 43 There is a need for vendor specific extensions to Mobility Header 44 messages so that Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol 45 for research or deployment purposes. This document defines a new 46 vendor specific mobility option. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 1. Introduction 64 Vendor specific messages have traditionally allowed vendors to 65 implement extensions to some protocols and distinguish themselves 66 from other vendors. These messages are clearly marked by a Vendor ID 67 that identifies the vendor. A particular vendor's implementation 68 identifies the vendor extension by recognizing the Vendor ID. 69 Implementations that do not recognize the Vendor ID either discard or 70 skip processing the message. 72 Mobile IPv6 [2] is being deployed and there is a need for vendor 73 specific extensions to Mobility Header messages so that vendors are 74 able to extend the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research or deployment 75 purposes. 77 This document defines a new mobility option, the Vendor Specific 78 Mobility option, which can be carried in any Mobility Header message. 79 The Vendor Specific mobility option MUST be used only with a Mobility 80 Header message. Mobility options, by definition, can be skipped if 81 an implementation does not recognize the mobility option type [2]. 83 The messages defined in this document can also be used for NEMO [3] 84 and Proxy MIPv6 [4] since these protocols also use Mobility Header 85 messages. 87 Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious 88 interoperability issues if they are not used carefully. The vendor 89 specific extensions MUST be standardized in the IETF if they are to 90 be deployed in a large scale or if multiple vendors are involved in a 91 particular system or deployment. Experience has shown that vendor 92 specific extensions benefit from IETF review and standardization. 94 2. Terminology 96 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 97 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 98 document are to be interpreted as described in [1]. 100 3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option 102 The Vendor Specific Mobility Option can be included in any Mobility 103 Header message and has an alignment requirement of 4n+2. If the 104 Mobility Header message includes a Binding Authorization Data option 105 [2], then the Vendor Specific mobility option should appear before 106 the Binding Authorization Data option. Multiple Vendor Specific 107 mobility options MAY be present in a Mobility Header message. 109 0 1 2 3 110 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 112 | Type | Length | 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | Vendor ID | 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 | | 117 . . 118 . Data . 119 . . 120 | | 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 Type 125 A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility 126 option. 128 Length 130 A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding 131 the Type and Length fields. 133 Vendor ID 135 The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor/ 136 Organization as defined by IANA. 138 Data 140 Vendor specific data that is carried in this message. 142 4. Security Considerations 144 The Vendor Specific mobility messages should be protected in a manner 145 similar to Binding Updates and Binding acknowledgements if it carries 146 information that should not be revealed on the wire or that can 147 affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the correspondent 148 node. 150 5. IANA Considerations 152 The Vendor Specific mobility option defined in Section 3, should have 153 the type value allocated from the same space as Mobility Options [2]. 155 6. Acknowledgements 157 The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with 158 whom the contents of this document were discussed first. 160 7. References 162 7.1. Normative References 164 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 165 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 167 [2] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in 168 IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 170 7.2. Informative References 172 [3] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, 173 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, 174 January 2005. 176 [4] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", 177 draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01 (work in progress), 178 January 2007. 180 Authors' Addresses 182 Vijay Devarapalli 183 Azaire Networks 184 4800 Great America Pkwy 185 Santa Clara, CA 95054 186 USA 188 Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com 190 Alpesh Patel 191 Cisco 192 170 West Tasman Drive 193 San Jose, CA 95134 194 USA 196 Email: alpesh@cisco.com 197 Kent Leung 198 Cisco 199 170 West Tasman Drive 200 San Jose, CA 95134 201 USA 203 Email: kleung@cisco.com 205 Full Copyright Statement 207 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 209 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 210 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 211 retain all their rights. 213 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 214 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 215 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 216 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 217 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 218 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 219 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 221 Intellectual Property 223 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 224 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 225 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 226 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 227 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 228 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 229 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 230 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 232 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 233 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 234 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 235 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 236 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 237 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 239 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 240 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 241 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 242 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 243 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 245 Acknowledgment 247 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 248 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).