Subject: [Mip4] Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt to Proposed Standard

From: "McCann Peter-A001034" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:29:02 -0400

This is a request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt,
"Mobile IPv4 Extension for Configuration Options Exchange",
to Proposed Standard RFC.  The draft has completed last call 
and all outstanding issues have been addressed.

>    (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?

Pete McCann is the document shepherd.  Yes, I have personally 
reviewed the document and 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?

The document has been adequately reviewed.  I have no concern about
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?

To be safe, the document should probably be reviewed by the dhc working
group during IETF Last Call to make sure there are no inconsistencies
with the way DHCP works and this draft.

>    (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 issues.

>    (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 unanimous consensus to advance the document.  I believe that
the WG as a whole understands the approach and is comfortable with the
document.

>    (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 appeals have been threatened.

>    (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 nits found by the automated checker, and no nits found during
manual proof-reading.

>    (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 4 normative reference, each one a published RFC
of Proposed Standard or better status.

>    (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 is complete.  One assignment from 
the Mobile IP extension space for skippable extensions is requested.
Two new number spaces are created and both give a policy of approval
by Designated Expert.  We have not yet discussed the appointment
of such an expert but will do so shortly.

>    (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?

No such formal notation is used.

>    (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

Existing Mobile IPv4 specifications allow for the configuration of
a home address during Mobile IP Registration processing.  This document
extends the range of parameters that can be configured during
registration
by allowing for the transport of arbitrary DHCP options in a Mobile IP
Registration Request or Response.  The options are carried in a new
extension to the Mobile IP registration and borrow their structure from
existing DHCP options.

>           Working Group Summary

The document completed last call in the mip4 working group in November,
2006.

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

Pete McCann is the document shepherd.  Jari Arkko is the responsible AD.

-Pete

-- 
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/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:31:43 +0300

I have made my AD review on this document, and it revealed
no issues. However, as Pete indicated in his e-mail this draft
needs review from the DHCP experts and we are talking with
them in order to find out how to best arrange that.

Jari