doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 899 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8371.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8371.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..335b197
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8371.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,899 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        C. Perkins
+Request for Comments: 8371                                     Futurewei
+Category: Standards Track                                 V. Devarapalli
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                          Vasona Networks
+                                                               July 2018
+
+
+                 Mobile Node Identifier Types for MIPv6
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines additional identifier type numbers for use with
+   the mobile node identifier option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) as defined
+   by RFC 4283.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8371.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+   described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+   3.  New Mobile Node Identifier Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+   4.  Descriptions of MN Identifier Types . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+     4.1.  Description of the IPv6 Address Type  . . . . . . . . . .   4
+     4.2.  Description of the IMSI MN Identifier Type  . . . . . . .   5
+     4.3.  Description of the EUI-48 Address Type  . . . . . . . . .   5
+     4.4.  Description of the EUI-64 Address Type  . . . . . . . . .   5
+     4.5.  Description of the DUID Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
+   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
+     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
+     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
+   Appendix A.  RFID Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
+     A.1.  Description of the RFID Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
+       A.1.1.  Description of the RFID-SGTIN-64 Type . . . . . . . .  14
+       A.1.2.  Description of the RFID-SGTIN-96 Type . . . . . . . .  14
+       A.1.3.  Description of the RFID-SSCC-64 Type  . . . . . . . .  14
+       A.1.4.  Description of the RFID-SSCC-96 Type  . . . . . . . .  14
+       A.1.5.  Description of the RFID-SGLN-64 Type  . . . . . . . .  14
+       A.1.6.  Description of the RFID-SGLN-96 Type  . . . . . . . .  14
+       A.1.7.  Description of the RFID-GRAI-64 Type  . . . . . . . .  15
+       A.1.8.  Description of the RFID-GRAI-96 Type  . . . . . . . .  15
+       A.1.9.  Description of the RFID-GIAI-64 Type  . . . . . . . .  15
+       A.1.10. Description of the RFID-GIAI-96 Type  . . . . . . . .  15
+       A.1.11. Description of the RFID-DoD-64 Type . . . . . . . . .  15
+       A.1.12. Description of the RFID-DoD-96 Type . . . . . . . . .  15
+       A.1.13. Description of the RFID URI Types . . . . . . . . . .  15
+   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
+   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)" [RFC4283]
+   has proved to be a popular design tool for providing identifiers for
+   mobile nodes during authentication procedures with Authentication,
+   Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) protocols such as Diameter
+   [RFC6733].  To date, only a single type of identifier has been
+   specified, namely the Mobile Node (MN) NAI.  Other types of
+   identifiers are in common use and are even referenced in RFC 4283.
+   In this document, we propose adding some basic identifier types that
+   are defined in various telecommunications standards, including types
+   for International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) [ThreeGPP-IDS],
+   Packet - Temporary Mobile Subscriber Identity (P-TMSI)
+   [ThreeGPP-IDS], International Mobile station Equipment Identities
+   (IMEI) [ThreeGPP-IDS], and Globally Unique Temporary UE Identity
+   (GUTI) [ThreeGPP-IDS].  In addition, we specify the IPv6 address
+   itself and IEEE MAC-layer addresses as Mobile Node identifiers.
+   Defining identifiers that are tied to the physical elements of the
+   device (e.g., the MAC address) help in deployment of Mobile IP
+   because, in many cases, such identifiers are the most natural means
+   for uniquely identifying the device and will avoid additional lookup
+   steps that might be needed if other identifiers were used.
+
+2.  Terminology
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
+   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
+   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
+   capitals, as shown here.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+3.  New Mobile Node Identifier Types
+
+   The following types of identifiers are commonly used to identify
+   mobile nodes.  For each type, references are provided with full
+   details on the format of the type of identifier.
+
+   +--------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+
+   | Identifier   | Description                       | Reference      |
+   | Type         |                                   |                |
+   +--------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+
+   | IPv6 Address |                                   | [RFC4291]      |
+   |              |                                   |                |
+   | IMSI         | International Mobile Subscriber   | [ThreeGPP-IDS] |
+   |              | Identity                          |                |
+   |              |                                   |                |
+   | P-TMSI       | Packet - Temporary Mobile         | [ThreeGPP-IDS] |
+   |              | Subscriber Identity               |                |
+   |              |                                   |                |
+   | GUTI         | Globally Unique Temporary UE      | [ThreeGPP-IDS] |
+   |              | Identity                          |                |
+   |              |                                   |                |
+   | EUI-48       | 48-Bit Extended Unique Identifier | [IEEE802]      |
+   | Address      |                                   |                |
+   |              |                                   |                |
+   | EUI-64       | 64-Bit Extended Unique Identifier | [IEEE802]      |
+   | Address      |                                   |                |
+   |              |                                   |                |
+   | DUID         | DHCPv6 Unique Identifier          | [RFC3315]      |
+   +--------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+
+
+                Table 1: Mobile Node Identifier Description
+
+4.  Descriptions of MN Identifier Types
+
+   This section provides descriptions for the various MN identifier
+   types.
+
+4.1.  Description of the IPv6 Address Type
+
+   The IPv6 address [RFC4291] is encoded as a 16-octet string containing
+   a full IPv6 address that has been assigned to the mobile node.  The
+   IPv6 address MUST be a unicast routable IPv6 address.  Multicast
+   addresses, link-local addresses, and the unspecified IPv6 address
+   MUST NOT be used.  IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) MAY be used as
+   long as any security operations making use of the ULA also take into
+   account the domain in which the ULA is guaranteed to be unique.
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+4.2.  Description of the IMSI MN Identifier Type
+
+   The International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) [ThreeGPP-IDS] is
+   at most 15 decimal digits (i.e., digits from 0 through 9).  The IMSI
+   MUST be encoded as a string of octets in network order (i.e., high to
+   low for all digits), where each digit occupies 4 bits.  If needed for
+   full octet size, the last digit MUST be padded with 0xf.  For
+   instance, an example IMSI 123456123456789 would be encoded as
+   follows:
+
+      0x12, 0x34, 0x56, 0x12, 0x34, 0x56, 0x78, 0x9f
+
+4.3.  Description of the EUI-48 Address Type
+
+   The IEEE EUI-48 address [IEEE802-GUIDELINES] is encoded as 6 octets
+   containing the IEEE EUI-48 address.
+
+4.4.  Description of the EUI-64 Address Type
+
+   The IEEE EUI-64 address [IEEE802-GUIDELINES] is encoded as 8 octets
+   containing the full IEEE EUI-64 address.
+
+4.5.  Description of the DUID Type
+
+   The DUID is the DHCPv6 Unique Identifier [RFC3315].  There are
+   various types of DUIDs, which are distinguished by an initial two-
+   octet type field.  Clients and servers MUST treat DUIDs as opaque
+   values and MUST only compare DUIDs for equality.
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document does not introduce any security mechanisms and does not
+   have any impact on existing security mechanisms.
+
+   Mobile node identifiers such as those described in this document are
+   considered to be private information.  If used in the MN identifier
+   extension as defined in [RFC4283], the packet including the MN
+   identifier extension MUST be encrypted so that no personal
+   information or trackable identifiers are inadvertently disclosed to
+   passive observers.  Operators can potentially apply IPsec
+   Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] in transport mode with
+   confidentiality and integrity protection for protecting the identity
+   and location information in MIPv6 signaling messages.
+
+   Some MN identifiers contain sensitive identifiers that, as used in
+   protocols specified by other Standards Development Organizations
+   (SDOs), are only used for signaling during initial network entry.  In
+   such protocols, subsequent exchanges then rely on a temporary
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+   identifier allocated during the initial network entry.  Managing the
+   association between long-lived and temporary identifiers is outside
+   the scope of this document.
+
+6.  IANA Considerations
+
+   The new mobile node identifier types defined in this document have
+   been assigned values from the "Mobile Node Identifier Option
+   Subtypes" registry.  The following values have been registered.
+
+               +-----------------+------------------------+
+               | Identifier Type | Identifier Type Number |
+               +-----------------+------------------------+
+               | IPv6 Address    | 2                      |
+               | IMSI            | 3                      |
+               | P-TMSI          | 4                      |
+               | EUI-48 address  | 5                      |
+               | EUI-64 address  | 6                      |
+               | GUTI            | 7                      |
+               | DUID            | 8                      |
+               | Reserved        | 9-15                   |
+               | Unassigned      | 16-255                 |
+               +-----------------+------------------------+
+
+                 Table 2: New Mobile Node Identifier Types
+
+   See Section 4 for additional information about the identifier types.
+   The registration procedure is Standards Action [RFC8126].  The expert
+   must ascertain that the identifier type allows unique identification
+   of the mobile device; since all MN identifiers require encryption,
+   there is no additional privacy exposure attendant to the use of new
+   types.
+
+7.  References
+
+7.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+
+   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
+              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
+              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
+              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+   [RFC4283]  Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K.
+              Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6
+              (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, DOI 10.17487/RFC4283, November 2005,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4283>.
+
+   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
+              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
+              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
+
+   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
+              RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
+
+   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
+              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
+              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
+
+   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
+              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
+              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
+
+7.2.  Informative References
+
+   [EANUCCGS]
+              EAN International and the Uniform Code Council, "General
+              EAN.UCC Specifications", Version 5.0, January 2004.
+
+   [EPC-Tag-Data]
+              EPCglobal, Inc., "EPC Generation 1 Tag Data Standards
+              Version 1.1 Rev.1.27", May 2005,
+              <https://www.gs1.org/sites/default/files/docs/epc/
+              tds_1_1_rev_1_27-standard-20050510.pdf>.
+
+   [IEEE802]  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
+              Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802.
+
+   [IEEE802-GUIDELINES]
+              IEEE, "Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier
+              (EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and
+              Company ID (CID)", August 2018,
+              <http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/tut/eui.pdf>.
+
+   [RFC6733]  Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
+              Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+   [RFID-DoD-spec]
+              Department of Defense, "United States Department of
+              Defense Suppliers' Passive RFID Information Guide",
+              Version 15.0, January 2010.
+
+   [RFID-framework]
+              Botero, O., "Heterogeneous RFID framework design, analysis
+              and evaluation", Institut National des Telecommunications,
+              July 2012.
+
+   [ThreeGPP-IDS]
+              3GPP, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
+              Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Numbering,
+              addressing and identification (Release 15)", 3GPP
+              TS 23.003, V15.3.0, March 2018.
+
+   [TRACK-IoT]
+              Chaouchi, H., "Heterogeneous IoT Network: TRACK-IoT
+              Plateform", Telecom SudParis, Internal Report, March 2012.
+
+   [Using-RFID-IPv6]
+              IPv6.com, "Using RFID & IPv6", September 2006.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+Appendix A.  RFID Types
+
+   The material in this non-normative appendix was originally composed
+   for inclusion in the main body of the specification but was moved
+   into an appendix because there was insufficient support for
+   allocating Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) types at the time.
+   It was observed that RFID-based mobile devices may create privacy
+   exposures unless confidentiality is assured for signaling.  A
+   specification for eliminating unauthorized RFID tracking based on
+   Layer 2 addresses would be helpful.
+
+   Much of the following text is due to contributions from Hakima
+   Chaouchi.  For an overview and some initial suggestions about using
+   RFID with IPv6 on mobile devices, see [Using-RFID-IPv6].
+
+   In the context of Internet of Things (IoT) and Industry 4.0, vertical
+   domain, efficient inventory, and tracking items are of major
+   interest, and RFID technology is the identification technology in the
+   hardware design of many such items.
+
+   The "TRACK-IoT" project [TRACK-IoT] [RFID-framework] explored Mobile
+   IPv6 as a mobility management protocol for RFID-based mobile devices.
+
+   1.  Passive RFID tags (that have no processing resources) need to be
+       handled by the gateway (likely also the RFID reader), which is
+       then the endpoint of the mobility protocol.  It is also the point
+       where the Change of Address (CoA) will be created based on some
+       combination such as the RFID tag and the prefix of that gateway.
+       The point here is to offer the possibility to passive RFID items
+       to get an IPv6 address and take advantage of the mobility
+       framework to follow the mobile device (passive tag on the item).
+       One example scenario that has been proposed, which shows the need
+       for mobility management of passive RFID items, would be pieces of
+       art tagged with passive tags that need to be monitored while
+       transported.
+
+   2.  Using active RFID tags (where the processing resource is
+       available on the tag), the endpoint of the mobility protocol can
+       be hosted directly on the RFID active tag, which is also called
+       an identification sensor.  A use case for active RFID tags
+       includes traceability of cold food during mobility (transport).
+       Also, mobility of cars equipped with active RFID tags that we
+       already use for toll payment can be added with mobility
+       management.
+
+   One major effort to connect IETF efforts to EPCglobal (RFID
+   standardization) led to the Object Name Service (ONS), which is the
+   DNS version applied for RFID logical names and page information
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                    [Page 9]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+   retrieval.  Attempts have been made to connect IPv6 on the address
+   space to RFID identifier format.  Other initiatives started working
+   on gateways to map tag identifiers with IPv6 addresses and build
+   signaling protocols for the application level.  For instance,
+   tracking of mobile items equipped with a tag can be triggered
+   remotely by a remote correspondent node until a visiting area where a
+   mobile item equipped with an RFID tag is located.  An RFID reader
+   will be added with an IPv6-to-RFID tag translation.  One option is to
+   build a home IPv6 address of that tagged item by using the prefix of
+   the home agent combined with the tag RFID identifier of the mobile
+   item; as the tag ID is unique, the home IPv6 address of that item
+   will be also unique.  Then, the visiting RFID reader will compose the
+   IPv6 care of address of the tagged mobile item by combining the
+   prefix of the RFID reader with the tag ID of the item.  MIPv6 can
+   then normally provide the mobility management of that RFID-tagged
+   item.  A different, useful example of tagged items involves items of
+   a factory that can be tracked while they are transported, especially
+   for real-time localization and tracking of precious items transported
+   without GPS.  An automotive car manufacturer can assign IPv6
+   addresses corresponding to RFID-tagged cars or mechanical car parts
+   and build a tracking data set of the mobility not only of the cars,
+   but also of the mechanical pieces.
+
+   The Tag Data Standard promoted by Electronic Product Code (EPC)
+   [EPC-Tag-Data] supports several encoding systems or schemes, which
+   are commonly used in RFID applications, including the following:
+
+   o  RFID-GID (Global Identifier),
+
+   o  RFID-SGTIN (Serialized Global Trade Item Number),
+
+   o  RFID-SSCC (Serial Shipping Container Code),
+
+   o  RFID-SGLN (Serialized Global Location Number),
+
+   o  RFID-GRAI (Global Returnable Asset Identifier),
+
+   o  RFID-DOD (Department of Defense ID), and
+
+   o  RFID-GIAI (Global Individual Asset Identifier).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                   [Page 10]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+   For each RFID scheme except GID, there are three representations:
+
+   o  a 64-bit binary representation (for example, SGLN-64), excluding
+      GID,
+
+   o  a 96-bit binary representation (SGLN-96), and
+
+   o  a representation as a URI.
+
+   The URI representation for the RFID is actually a URN.  The EPC
+   document has the following language:
+
+      All categories of URIs are represented as Uniform Reference Names
+      (URNs) as defined by [RFC2141], where the URN Namespace is epc.
+
+   The following list includes the above RFID types.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                   [Page 11]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+   +----------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
+   | Identifier     | Description                    | Reference       |
+   | Type           |                                |                 |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
+   | RFID-SGTIN-64  | 64-bit Serialized Global Trade | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Item Number                    |                 |
+   | RFID-SSCC-64   | 64-bit Serial Shipping         | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Container Code                 |                 |
+   | RFID-SGLN-64   | 64-bit Serialized Global       | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Location Number                |                 |
+   | RFID-GRAI-64   | 64-bit Global Returnable Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Identifier                     |                 |
+   | RFID-DOD-64    | 64-bit Department of Defense   | [RFID-DoD-spec] |
+   |                | ID                             |                 |
+   | RFID-GIAI-64   | 64-bit Global Individual Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Identifier                     |                 |
+   | RFID-GID-96    | 96-bit Global Identifier       | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   | RFID-SGTIN-96  | 96-bit Serialized Global Trade | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Item Number                    |                 |
+   | RFID-SSCC-96   | 96-bit Serial Shipping         | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Container                      |                 |
+   | RFID-SGLN-96   | 96-bit Serialized Global       | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Location Number                |                 |
+   | RFID-GRAI-96   | 96-bit Global Returnable Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Identifier                     |                 |
+   | RFID-DOD-96    | 96-bit Department of Defense   | [RFID-DoD-spec] |
+   |                | ID                             |                 |
+   | RFID-GIAI-96   | 96-bit Global Individual Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Identifier                     |                 |
+   | RFID-GID-URI   | Global Identifier represented  | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | as a URI                       |                 |
+   | RFID-SGTIN-URI | Serialized Global Trade Item   | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Number represented as a URI    |                 |
+   | RFID-SSCC-URI  | Serial Shipping Container Code | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | represented as a URI           |                 |
+   | RFID-SGLN-URI  | Global Location Number         | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | represented as a URI           |                 |
+   | RFID-GRAI-URI  | Global Returnable Asset        | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Identifier represented as a    |                 |
+   |                | URI                            |                 |
+   | RFID-DOD-URI   | Department of Defense ID       | [RFID-DoD-spec] |
+   |                | represented as a URI           |                 |
+   | RFID-GIAI-URI  | Global Individual Asset        | [EPC-Tag-Data]  |
+   |                | Identifier represented as a    |                 |
+   |                | URI                            |                 |
+   +----------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
+
+             Table 3: Mobile Node RFID Identifier Description
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                   [Page 12]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+A.1.  Description of the RFID Types
+
+   The material in this appendix has been either quoted or loosely
+   adapted from [EPC-Tag-Data].
+
+   The General Identifier (GID) that is used with RFID is composed of
+   three fields: General Manager Number, Object Class, and Serial
+   Number.  The General Manager Number identifies an organizational
+   entity that is responsible for maintaining the numbers in subsequent
+   fields.  GID encodings include a fourth field, the header, to
+   guarantee uniqueness in the namespace defined by EPC.
+
+   Some of the RFID types depend on the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN)
+   code defined in the EAN.UCC General Specifications [EANUCCGS].  A
+   GTIN identifies a particular class of object, such as a particular
+   kind of product or SKU.
+
+   The EPC encoding scheme for SGTIN permits the direct embedding of
+   EAN.UCC System standard GTIN and Serial Number codes on EPC tags.  In
+   all cases, the check digit is not encoded.  Two encoding schemes are
+   specified, SGTIN-64 (64 bits) and SGTIN-96 (96 bits).
+
+   The Serial Shipping Container Code (SSCC) is defined by the EAN.UCC
+   Specifications.  Unlike the GTIN, the SSCC is already intended for
+   assignment to individual objects and therefore does not require
+   additional fields to serve as an EPC pure identity.  Two encoding
+   schemes are specified, SSCC-64 (64 bits) and SSCC-96 (96 bits).
+
+   The Global Location Number (GLN) is defined by the EAN.UCC
+   Specifications.  A GLN can represent either a discrete, unique
+   physical location such as a warehouse slot, or an aggregate physical
+   location such as an entire warehouse.  In addition, a GLN can
+   represent a logical entity that performs a business function such as
+   placing an order.  The Serialized Global Location Number (SGLN)
+   includes the Company Prefix, Location Reference, and Serial Number.
+
+   The Global Returnable Asset Identifier (GRAI) is defined by the
+   General EAN.UCC Specifications.  Unlike the GTIN, the GRAI is already
+   intended for assignment to individual objects and therefore does not
+   require any additional fields to serve as an EPC pure identity.  The
+   GRAI includes the Company Prefix, Asset Type, and Serial Number.
+
+   The Global Individual Asset Identifier (GIAI) is defined by the
+   General EAN.UCC Specifications.  Unlike the GTIN, the GIAI is already
+   intended for assignment to individual objects and therefore does not
+   require any additional fields to serve as an EPC pure identity.  The
+   GRAI includes the Company Prefix and Individual Asset Reference.
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                   [Page 13]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+   The DoD Construct identifier is defined by the United States
+   Department of Defense (DoD).  This tag data construct may be used to
+   encode tags for shipping goods to the DoD by a supplier who has
+   already been assigned a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code.
+
+A.1.1.  Description of the RFID-SGTIN-64 Type
+
+   The RFID-SGTIN-64 is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   SGTIN-64 includes five fields: Header, Filter Value (additional data
+   that is used for fast filtering and preselection), Company Prefix
+   Index, Item Reference, and Serial Number.  Only a limited number of
+   Company Prefixes can be represented in the 64-bit tag.
+
+A.1.2.  Description of the RFID-SGTIN-96 Type
+
+   The RFID-SGTIN-96 is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   SGTIN-96 includes six fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition (an
+   indication of where the subsequent Company Prefix and Item Reference
+   numbers are divided), Company Prefix Index, Item Reference, and
+   Serial Number.
+
+A.1.3.  Description of the RFID-SSCC-64 Type
+
+   The RFID-SSCC-64 is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   SSCC-64 includes four fields: Header, Filter Value, Company Prefix
+   Index, and Serial Reference.  Only a limited number of Company
+   Prefixes can be represented in the 64-bit tag.
+
+A.1.4.  Description of the RFID-SSCC-96 Type
+
+   The RFID-SSCC-96 is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   SSCC-96 includes six fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition, Company
+   Prefix, and Serial Reference, as well as 24 bits that remain
+   unallocated and must be zero.
+
+A.1.5.  Description of the RFID-SGLN-64 Type
+
+   The RFID-SGLN-64 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   SGLN-64 includes five fields: Header, Filter Value, Company Prefix
+   Index, Location Reference, and Serial Number.
+
+A.1.6.  Description of the RFID-SGLN-96 Type
+
+   The RFID-SGLN-96 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   SGLN-96 includes six fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition, Company
+   Prefix, Location Reference, and Serial Number.
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                   [Page 14]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+A.1.7.  Description of the RFID-GRAI-64 Type
+
+   The RFID-GRAI-64 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   GRAI-64 includes five fields: Header, Filter Value, Company Prefix
+   Index, Asset Type, and Serial Number.
+
+A.1.8.  Description of the RFID-GRAI-96 Type
+
+   The RFID-GRAI-96 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   GRAI-96 includes six fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition, Company
+   Prefix, Asset Type, and Serial Number.
+
+A.1.9.  Description of the RFID-GIAI-64 Type
+
+   The RFID-GIAI-64 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   GIAI-64 includes four fields: Header, Filter Value, Company Prefix
+   Index, and Individual Asset Reference.
+
+A.1.10.  Description of the RFID-GIAI-96 Type
+
+   The RFID-GIAI-96 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data].  The
+   GIAI-96 includes five fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition,
+   Company Prefix, and Individual Asset Reference.
+
+A.1.11.  Description of the RFID-DoD-64 Type
+
+   The RFID-DoD-64 type is encoded as specified in [RFID-DoD-spec].  The
+   DoD-64 type includes four fields: Header, Filter Value, Government
+   Managed Identifier, and Serial Number.
+
+A.1.12.  Description of the RFID-DoD-96 Type
+
+   The RFID-DoD-96 type is encoded as specified in [RFID-DoD-spec].  The
+   DoD-96 type includes four fields: Header, Filter Value, Government
+   Managed Identifier, and Serial Number.
+
+A.1.13.  Description of the RFID URI Types
+
+   In some cases, it is desirable to encode in URI form a specific
+   encoding of an RFID tag.  For example, an application may prefer a
+   URI representation for report preparation.  Applications that wish to
+   manipulate any additional data fields on tags may need some
+   representation other than the pure identity forms.
+
+   For this purpose, the fields as represented in previous sections are
+   associated with specified fields in the various URI types.  For
+   instance, the URI may have fields such as CompanyPrefix,
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                   [Page 15]
+
+RFC 8371              MN Identifier Types for MIPv6            July 2018
+
+
+   ItemReference, or SerialNumber.  For details and encoding specifics,
+   consult [EPC-Tag-Data].
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   The authors wish to acknowledge Hakima Chaouchi, Tatuya Jinmei, Jouni
+   Korhonen, Sri Gundavelli, Suresh Krishnan, Dapeng Liu, Dale Worley,
+   Joseph Salowey, Linda Dunbar, and Mirja Kuehlewind for their helpful
+   comments.  The authors also wish to acknowledge the RFC Editor for a
+   number of valuable suggestions and updates during the final stages of
+   producing this document.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Charles E. Perkins
+   Futurewei Inc.
+   2330 Central Expressway
+   Santa Clara, CA  95050
+   United States of America
+
+   Phone: +1-408-330-4586
+   Email: charliep@computer.org
+
+
+   Vijay Devarapalli
+   Vasona Networks
+   2900 Lakeside Drive, Suite 180
+   Santa Clara, CA 95054
+   United States of America
+
+   Email: dvijay@gmail.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Perkins & Devarapalli        Standards Track                   [Page 16]
+