The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Logical-interface Support for Multi-access enabled IP Hosts' (draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-14.txt) as Informational RFC 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-logical-interface-support/ Technical Summary: A Logical-interface is a software semantic internal to the host operating system. This semantic is available in all popular operating systems and is used in various protocol implementations. The Logical-interface support is required on the mobile node attached to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, for leveraging various network-based mobility management features such as inter-technology handoffs, multihoming and flow mobility support. This document explains the operational details of Logical-interface construct and the specifics on how the link-layer implementations hide the physical interfaces from the IP stack and from the network nodes on the attached access networks. Furthermore, this document identifies the applicability of this approach to various link-layer technologies and analyzes the issues around it when used in conjunction with various mobility management features. Working Group Summary: The working group has struggled to arrive at consensus on whether this document adds value to the Proxy Mobile IP protocol. The concept of a logical interface is well understood in networking circles and hence there has not been much interest in getting this published. However after much debate the working group has agreed that it would help the community to publish this I-D as an informational document. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Implementations of logical interfaces are common in most operating systems. Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Not Applicable. 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? 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? No. This document does not specify any MIB or media type etc. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil AD: Brian Haberman
