Subject: [16NG] Request to Advance: IP over 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:45:26 +0900

Hi Jari and Mark, 

The 16ng WG document, "IP over 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals"
has completed its WGLC and gone through several experts reviews.
It is ready for the advancement.

o Filename: draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals-02
o Intended Publication: Informational RFC
o Document shepherd write-up for the ID: Below

==============================================================

Document shepherd questions and writeup format

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Daniel Park is the Document Shepherd for this document. 
I've reviewed this document and it is ready for advancing to the
IESG for publication.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

Several 802.16 and IPv6 experts reviewed this document to enhance the
quality of this document. This document went through the 2 weeks WGLC 
in the 16ng WG. I have no concern about the depth or breadth of the 
reviewrs that have been performed.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

None.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.

None.

   (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

There is strong WG consensus in advancing this document. Also, 
selected reviewers are ok with this document to be moved forward.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

No major issues found here. There are minor nits that reported by 
the idnits tool.
- The page length (page 13) should not exceed 58 lines.
- The document does not use any RFC 2119 keywords.
In addition, author should not exceed 5 people. These will be fixed 
in the subsequent revision.

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document splits its references into normative and informative.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See
          [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
          describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
          the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
          needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section exists. This document has no 
actions for IANA.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

Does not apply to this document.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

Relevent content can frequently and easily be found in the abstract 
and introduction of this document.

          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
             example, was there controversy about particular points or
             were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
             rough?

None.

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  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?

This document specifices problems in running the IETF protocols over 
IEEE 802.16 network and identifies specific gaps in the 802.16 MAC for 
IPv4 and IPv6 support.Also, this document spells out several goals to 
point at relevant works to be done in IETF. The quality of the document is
good.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?

Daniel Park is the Document Shepherd for this document.
Jari Arkko is the Responsible Area Director.

==============================================================

Daniel Park and Gabriel Montenegro
Chairs, 16NG Working Group

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng