idnits 2.17.1 draft-liu-dmm-mobility-api-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-04], [RFC2119], [I-D.draft-korhonen-6man-prfix-properties], [RFC5014]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5014, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5014 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. (Using the creation date from RFC5014, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2003-02-24) -- 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 (July 08, 2013) is 3943 days in the past. Is this intentional? -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with '' and '' lines. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5014 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 -- No information found for draft-korhonen-6man-prfix-properties - is the name correct? == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-seite-dmm-dma-06 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Distributed Mobility Managment Working Group D. Liu 3 Internet-Draft H. Deng 4 Updates: 5014 (if approved) China Mobile 5 Intended status: Standards Track July 08, 2013 6 Expires: January 09, 2014 8 Mobility API Extension for Distributed Mobility Management 9 draft-liu-dmm-mobility-api-01 11 Abstract 13 [RFC5014] specifies extension to socket API to allow application to 14 specify the preference among multiple source addresses. 15 [I-D.draft-korhonen-6man-prfix-properties] and 16 [I-D.draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-04] propose to extend 17 router advertisment to carry the prefix property and class 18 information. The mobile node can learn the prefix property and class 19 information from the router advertisment message. This document 20 proposes an extension to [RFC5014] to enable the application to 21 select the distributed mobility management related prefixes. 23 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 24 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 25 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 09, 2014. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Proposed Extension of RFC 5014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Usage Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 1. Proposed Extension of RFC 5014 73 [RFC5014]defines socket API extension used for IPv6 source address 74 selection. Application can use this API to override the default 75 source address selection mechanism for IPv6. Currently, [RFC5014] 76 defines the following types of source address selection preference: 78 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_HOME /* Prefer Home address as source */ 80 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_COA /* Prefer Care-of address as source */ 82 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_TMP /* Prefer Temporary address as source */ 84 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_PUBLIC /* Prefer Public address as source */ 86 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_CGA /* Prefer CGA address as source */ 88 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_NONCGA /* Prefer a non-CGA address as source */ 90 This document proposes to extend the above definition to add two new 91 flags: 93 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_LOCAL_HNP: 95 Prefer to use locally allocated home network prefix. 97 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_REMOTE_HNP: 99 Prefer to use the home network prefix that allocated by other access 100 router instead of the one that the MN currently attach. 102 2. Usage Example 104 This section gives usage example for this API extension. 106 [I-D.draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01] and 107 [I-D.draft-seite-dmm-dma-06] discuss the distributed mobility 108 management practice. It introduces dynamic anchoring concept: the 109 mobile node can have multiple mobility anchor points and the mobile 110 node select the locally allocated IP address for the newly started 111 application for optimized routing. The mobile node can continue to 112 use the IP address allocated by previous anchor point for the on 113 going session. When the on going session terminate, the mobile node 114 will release the previous anchor point allocated IP address. 116 In the dynamic anchoring scenario, for the newly started application, 117 it should use the IP address allocated by the local mobility anchor. 118 The application can use IPV6_PREFER_SRC_LOCAL_HNP flag to select the 119 local allocated IP address. For the on going session, the 120 application can use IPV6_PREFER_SRC_REMOTE_HNP flag to select the 121 previous mobility anchor allocated home address to gurantee the 122 session continuity. 124 3. IANA Considerations 126 This document makes no request of IANA. 128 Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an 129 RFC. 131 4. Security Considerations 133 TBD 135 5. Acknowledgements 137 TBD 139 6. References 140 6.1. Normative References 142 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 143 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 145 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 146 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, 147 September 2007. 149 6.2. Informative References 151 [I-D.draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-04] 152 , "DHCPv6 class based prefix ", draft-bhandari-dhc-class- 153 based-prefix-04 (work in progress), February 2013. 155 [I-D.draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01] 156 , "Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and 157 gap analysis ", draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap- 158 analysis-01 (work in progress), June 2013. 160 [I-D.draft-korhonen-6man-prfix-properties] 161 , "IPv6 Prefix Properties", draft-korhonen-6man-prfix- 162 properties (work in progress), February 2013. 164 [I-D.draft-seite-dmm-dma-06] 165 , "Distributed Mobility Anchoring", draft-seite-dmm-dma-06 166 (work in progress), January 2013. 168 Authors' Addresses 170 Dapeng Liu 171 China Mobile 172 32 Xuanwumen West Street 173 Beijng, Xicheng District 100053 174 China 176 Phone: +86-13911788933 177 Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com 179 Hui Deng 180 China Mobile 181 32 Xuanwumen West Street 182 Beijng, Xicheng District 100053 183 China 185 Email: denghui@chinamobile.com