Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:07:18 -0500

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt
===================================================
 
   (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?
 
The document shepherd is Victor Fajardo. I have personally reviewed the
document and I believe it is ready 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?
 
This document is a solutions document for the MIPv6 bootstrapping problem
for the split scenario. It has direct implications for  
authentication/authorization, provisioning and accounting of mobility  
resources to users. Therefore, the document has received extensive reviews  
by relevant WG members - under the employ of operators and parties that  
have associations with interested SDOs.
 
Discrepancies found during the lifetime of this doc have received a fair
amount of reviews both within and outside of the WG. All discussions
have been publicly posted in the dime mailing list. So, I do not have any
concerns with the depth or breadth of the reviews.
 
   (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?
 
There are no concerns with this document.
 
   (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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.
 
There are no concerns with this document. An IPR disclosure has been 
filed,  
see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/964/, and the group has been informed  
about it. Content that may be subject of the IPR claim was moved  
into a separate document, see  
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-00.txt

   (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 consensus in the WG behind the document. The problem is
well understood and the solution is acceptable to the WG, as well
as other interested SDOs.
 
   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)
 
There is no opposition to this document.
 
   (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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
 
The document does not contain nits.
 
   (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 has been split into normative and informative references.
There normative references that are work in progress. They are as follows:
 
   [I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated]
              Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C.,
              and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for
              Network Access Server to Diameter Server  Interaction",
              draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-11 (work in progress),
              November 2008.
 
   [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes]
              Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
              and A. Lior, "Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter",
              draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09 (work in progress),
              December 2008.
 
It is expected that these referenced documents will be published ahead
of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt.
 
This document requires a DOWNREF for RFC 4285.  
 
   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?
 
The document has an IANA considerations section that is consistent with 
the body.
The document creates a new registry for the MIP6-Auth-Mode AVP (also 
defined in the
document). The document provides an initial value for this AVP and 
follows BCP 26
with "Specification Required" as an allocation requirement.  
 
Following RFC 3588, IETF consensus is required for allocation 
application ids,  
command  codes, AVP codes and values is done as part of the review and  
consensus process given by the work on it through the DIME working group.  
 
   (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?
 
The document contains ABNF rules specified in RFC 3588. The ABNF content
has been validated.
 
   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:
 
   Technical Summary
 
     This document specifies the interactions between the Mobile IP Home
     Agent and the Diameter server (AAA) in the case where the network
     access service and the mobility service is not in the same 
administrative
     domain. The purpose of the interactions is to bootstrap the mobile 
node
     from the MSP as part of the authentication and/or authorization 
process.
 
     The document defines new diameter applications to support IKEv2 and
     MIPv6 authentication protocol. It defines diameter messages, AVPs and
     command codes to carry the authentication, authorization and 
bootstrapping  
     attributes.
 
   Working Group Summary
 
     There was consensus in the WG to publish the document.
 
   Document Quality
 
     The document has been sent for review to MEXT. This document is part
     of the solution for Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping problem defined in
     RFC 4640. It has received extensive reviews from DIME WG members.
 
   Personnel
 
     Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document.

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime