Subject: [Mip4] Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-message-string-ext to Proposed Standard

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:54:33 +0100

This is a request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-message-string-ext-02,
"Mobile IPv4 Message String Extension", to Proposed Standard.  The
draft has completed its working group last call and all issues have
been addressed.

Regards,

	Henrik

--------

Here's the Document Shepherd Write-Up:

>    (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?

Henrik Levkowetz is Document Shepherd for this document.

Yes, I've personally reviewed this version of the document and believe
it is ready for forwarding 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?

The document has been through WG last call and additional review.  I
don't have any concerns about depth or breath 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?

No.

>    (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.

No.

>    (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 has not been any expressed disagreement about the purpose or need
for this document; the only strong discussion has been about details in
wording of one of the paragraph, which has been resolved.

>    (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?

Yes.

>    (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 split references (Note: the shepherd writeup template needs
updating on this point; this overlaps the requirements of the ID-Checklist).

All normative references are to published documents.  One normative reference
is to a BCP (RFC 2434), and should not be normative; it should be listed as
an informative reference or removed (it is *not* needed for implementation
of this specification).

>    (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?

Yes to all of these except a name for the new subtype registry; here the
name of the subtype is routinely used in the IANA registry for MIPv4
extension subtypes.  As for the Expert Review required, it is specified
to use the same mechanism (and presumably expert) as RFC 3344.

>    (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?

Not applicable.

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

Technical Summary

   This document specifies a new extension for use in Mobile IPv4.  This
   extension can be added by the Home Agent and the Foreign Agent to
   Registration Reply messages.  This extension carries a text string
   that is intended for the user of the Mobile Node.

Working Group Summary

   There is consensus in the MIP4 working group to publish this document
   as a Proposed Standard. 

Document Quality

   The document has been through working group last call and additional
   reviews.
 
Personnel
       
   Document Sheperd for this document is Henrik Levkowetz, and Jari Arkko
   is the Responsible Area Director.

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/