Version 9 (modified by brian@…, 9 years ago) (diff)



The HIP WG is chartered to finish an old Experimental RFC-to-be and to revise the main HIP specs, which are also Experimental, into Proposed Standards.

The old Experimental RFC-to-be is draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance

This draft was simply waiting for the RELOAD spec to be approved. Now that that has finally happened, this draft is being progressed. We have already requested its publication.

The WG also has a few "bis" drafts. They revise the old Experimental HIP specs. Additionally, there are a couple of drafts that are spin offs of those specs: the NAT traversal mechanism and the multihoming part of the mobility and multihoming spec. We decided to document these in separate specs for clarity.

We intend to request their publication in batches so that reviewers have the necessary context when performing their reviews. We will be requesting the publication of the first batch, which includes RFC 4843bis, RFC 5201bis, and RFC 5202bis, shortly.


Sunset4 had 2 sessions during IETF87.

The first session discussed the gap-analysis draft, an ARP issue draft, an analysis draft on NAT64 port allocation methods, a method to filter DNS A records draft, and a SIP-v4-v6 issues draft. No change were discussed on the status of the documents. The problem statement part of the ARP issue draft is being considered to be folded into the gap-analysis draft. The solution part of the same draft will require more work.

The second session was held together with DHC. The goal is to identify overlaps between the WGs and to raise awareness of both WGs about the related works. The turn-off-ipv4 using dhcpv6 and RA draft, the DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 draft, the DHC v4 configuration draft and the DHCPv6 dynamic DNS reconfigure draft were discussed. The first one has been primarily discussed in sunset4 and the remaining have been primarily discussed in DHC. No change were discussed on the status of the documents. The sunset4 turn-off-ipv4 using dhcpv6 and RA draft seem to raise no major issue from both groups and seems an acceptable approach. However concerns about the MIF case and security considerations need to be addressed. It will be most likely balloted in the sunset4 for WG adoption.


The TRILL WG met in the last time slot on Tuesday. The initial review of document and WG status also included a brief report on the recent TRILL plugfest at the University of New Hampshire Interoperability Laboratory in May, which lead to also discussing TRILL implementation reports. The primary topic of the TRILL meeting was OAM. RFC publication of the OAM framework document is being requested. The OAM Fault Management document is now a WG document and personal drafts exist for Performance and OAM MIB. There was considerable discussion concerning the fault management, performance, and MIB drafts and a consensus in the room that, because the current OAM efforts are based on IEEE 802.1 OAM, it is time to send a formal liaison to IEEE 802.1 requesting their review of the framework and fault management documents. The second topic of the meeting was TRILL directory assisted edge, covering mechanisms and pre-encapsulation, which were also discussed. Finally, there was a presentation on problems to be overcome in active-active at the edge for which some discussion occurred although the meeting had run a bit over time.


The DMM WG on Thursday first two slots and had a full agenda. The two WG documents: the "requirements document" (draft-ietf-dmm-requirements) and the "current practices and gap analysis" (draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis) have done some significant progress since the IETF#86. The charter milestones were updated. The new milestones are now:

Oct 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG..
Nov 2013 - Submit I-D 'Gap Analysis' to the IESG..
Nov 2013 - Evaluate the need for further work..

The requirements document have completed the WGLC#2 in April and since then number of open issue tracker tickets have gone down to 4 from 39. The remaining 4 were discussed during the face to face meeting and we have a resolution for those. After the new revision gets published the document is ready to go for another WGLC#3.

Regarding the gap analysis, it was stated by the chairs multiple times that for the new work to appear in the WG through rechartering the justification for it has to be found in the gap analysis document as a WG agreed identified gap. A common theme for most DMM solutions seems to be a need or ability for an end host (a mobile host) stack and/or application be able to distinguish which addresses/prefixes offer mobility/anchoring and which does not. Regarding the knowledge of the address/prefix "properties" there are individual I-Ds on the same space in 6MAN, DHC and Mif WGs (prefix coloring/classes/properties and multiple provisioning domains).

The WG also had again multiple presentations on the "DMM framework". The WG had a quick discussion and a poll for the possible work for a generic framework document. Around 20 people showed interest, thus once the WG possibly recharters, a "DMM framework" document is among candidate future work.

In addition to presentation of the individual I-Ds that have been around already for some time, we had a new presentations on a BGP (and anycast) based architecture solution (draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc) and a SDN based architecture solution for DMM (draft-liu-sdn-mobility).


The DHC WG had two sessions. The first, on Wednesday, was a joint session with Sunset4 and is described in the Sunset4 summary.

The second session, on Thursday, was for DHC exclusively. The session started with the chairs providing a status of the WG since the IETF-86 (Orlando). 4 documents were published as RFCs and 3 completed WGLCs and are close to being published. Also, this was the tenth anniversary of the DHCPv6 protocol (RFC 3315) as it was published July 30, 2003. Next, the re-chartering text was reviewed and a few edits were requested. The DHCP Directorate proposal was reviewed, and a few edits were requested. Then, a recap of the joint meeting with Sunset4 was provided. Next, the DHCPv6 Option Guidelines draft status was discussed; this will be going to the IESG shortly. Next, there was an update and discussion on the DHCPv6 Stateful Issues draft. Then, there were 3 presentations related to configuring IPv4 clients over IPv6 and with a lively discussion. Finally, there was a presentation on new DHCPv4 options for address assignment with port assignments. Several presentations were not given as we ran out of time.


The TICTOC WG has completed WGLCs on the timing security requirements and 1588 MIB documents. These will be advanced to the IESG within a month. The new work item on an Enterprise PTP profile was updated and presented to the working group. There is concern about the proliferation of 1588 profiles, but there is also recognition that the enterprise/data center application is not covered by other profiles. This profile has been implemented and deployed by multiple vendors.

A WGLC for the "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS Networks" draft has also been started and copied to the MPLS WG. There is some opposition to the motivating requirement and proposed solution addressed in this draft. Discussion in the working group identified two threshold questions for determining whether the document should move forward, does the solution harm MPLS, and does the solution prevent other solutions in the future. This was discussed with the MPLS WG on Friday. The result of that conversation is the MPLS chairs will find some MPLS reviewers, and upon completion of the review, a design team call will be scheduled to address the comments received.

The NTP WG has several items under consideration. The Network Time Security (autokey replacement) document was updated and presented. Drafts on the ntp extension field and udp checksum with ntp are under consideration. Finally, an expired draft on mode 6 messages needs to be resurrected and completed. Volunteers were solicited.

As part of our ongoing liaison communications, status reports from ITU-T SG15/Q13 and IEEE 1588 were provided.




Two working group drafts were discussed. draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-04 was presented first. It is ready for Working Group last call. Three people volunteered to review the draft. After the reviews, the draft will go for a Working Group last call. Next draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-01 was presented. This draft needs to go through editorial polishing and then a revision will be posted. Two Working Group members volunteered to review the draft after the revision is posted. Two out-of charter issues were discussed next. MN activity tracking at the LMA when RFC 6224 is used at the MAG was presented. Next, multiple MTMAs and avoiding tunnel convergence problem issue was discussed.

It was discussed with the AD closing after the current Working Group drafts are completed. Multimob in IETF 87 in Berlin has made good progress and there are no major concerns.