idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits39746/draft-devarapalli-mip6-vsm-02.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 on line 214. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 225. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 232. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 238. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. 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 RFC 3978 Section 5.4 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 (October 22, 2006) is 5690 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) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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: April 25, 2007 K. Leung 6 Cisco 7 October 22, 2006 9 Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option 10 draft-devarapalli-mip6-vsm-02.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 April 25, 2007. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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 84 implementations [3]. 86 Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious 87 interoperability issues if they are not used carefully. The vendor 88 specific extensions MUST be standardized in the IETF if they are to 89 be deployed in a large scale or if multiple vendors are involved in a 90 particular system or deployment. Experience has shown that vendor 91 specific extensions benefit from IETF review and standardization. 93 2. Terminology 95 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 96 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 97 document are to be interpreted as described in [1]. 99 3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option 101 The Vendor Specific Mobility Option can be included in any Mobility 102 Header message and has an alignment requirement of 4n+2. If the 103 Mobility Header message includes a Binding Authorization Data option 104 [2], then the Vendor Specific mobility option should appear before 105 the Binding Authorization Data option. Multiple Vendor Specific 106 mobility options MAY be present in a Mobility Header message. 108 0 1 2 3 109 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 1 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 | Type | Length | 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | Vendor ID | 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 | | 116 . . 117 . Data . 118 . . 119 | | 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 Type 124 A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility 125 option. 127 Length 129 A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding 130 the Type and Length fields. 132 Vendor ID 134 The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor/ 135 Organization as defined by IANA. 137 Data 139 Vendor specific data that is carried in this message. 141 4. Security Considerations 143 The Vendor Specific mobility messages should be protected in a manner 144 similar to Binding Updates and Binding acknowledgements if it carries 145 information that should not be revealed on the wire or that can 146 affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the correspondent 147 node. 149 5. IANA Considerations 151 The Vendor Specific mobility option defined in Section 3, should have 152 the type value allocated from the same space as Mobility Options [2]. 154 6. Acknowledgements 156 The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with 157 whom the contents of this document were discussed first. 159 7. References 161 7.1. Normative References 163 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 164 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 166 [2] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in 167 IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 169 7.2. Informative References 171 [3] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, 172 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, 173 January 2005. 175 Authors' Addresses 177 Vijay Devarapalli 178 Azaire Networks 179 4800 Great America Pkwy 180 Santa Clara, CA 95054 181 USA 183 Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com 185 Alpesh Patel 186 Cisco 187 170 West Tasman Drive 188 San Jose, CA 95134 189 USA 191 Email: alpesh@cisco.com 192 Kent Leung 193 Cisco 194 170 West Tasman Drive 195 San Jose, CA 95134 196 USA 198 Email: kleung@cisco.com 200 Full Copyright Statement 202 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 204 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 205 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 206 retain all their rights. 208 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 209 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 210 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 211 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 212 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 213 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 214 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 216 Intellectual Property 218 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 219 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 220 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 221 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 222 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 223 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 224 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 225 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 227 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 228 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 229 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 230 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 231 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 232 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 234 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 235 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 236 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 237 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 238 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 240 Acknowledgment 242 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 243 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).