Subject: [Mip6] Request to progress I-Ds: 1. draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-01.txt AND 2. draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:21:20 -0500

Hi Jari,

The following MIP6 WG I-Ds have completed WG last call and ready for
AD review and to be progressed forward.

I-Ds:
1. Mobile IPv6 Experimental Messages
<draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-01.txt>
2. Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option <draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt>

Both I-Ds are intended to be progressed as standards track documents.

The IESG writeup for these I-Ds is attached below.

-Basavaraj

Please note that this writeup is for two MIP6 WG I-Ds.

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

   (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?

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
I have reviewed the I-Ds and believe the documents are ready to be
forwarded 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 documents have been reviewed sufficiently. They are fairly simple
I-Ds and proposing vendor specific extensions for the mobility header
messages and a new experimental MH message. I do not have any concerns
about the depth or breadth of the reviews or the need for any further
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?

I do not believe there is a need for further reviews or to broaden the
scope of the reviews.

   (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.

I believe the documents are ready and do not have any concerns
progressing them.

   (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?

The documents have been presented to the MIP6 WG at meetings and there
is consensus on the proposed extensions contained in these I-Ds.

   (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.)

No appeal threats or otherwise have been made for these I-Ds.

   (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.

Yes. I have run the I-Ds through the ID-nits checker at tools.ietf.org
and no issues were indicated.

   (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].

Yes. The documents have split the references into normative and
informative sections.

   (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 IANA section exists and is satisfactory.

   (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 to the I-Ds being discussed here.

   (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

I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages
   This document defines a new experimental Mobility header message and
   a mobility option that can be used for experimental extensions to the
   Mobile IPv6 protocol.

I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-vsm
   There is a need for vendor specific extensions to Mobility Header
   messages so that Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol
   for research or deployment purposes.  This document defines a new
   vendor specific mobility option.

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

No controversy has been raised or identified with these I-Ds.  The
I-Ds are fairly simple and the extensions useful for the MIP6 protocol.

          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?

No known implementations of the extensions being proposed here
exist. No media types of MIB exists in the documents.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:31:28 +0300

I have made my AD review on the mip6-experimental-messages
specification, and found no issues. Last Call has been initiated
for this.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:39:22 +0300

I have made my AD review on the mip6-vsm specification,
and found no issues. Last Call has been initiated
for this.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:01:56 +0300

I have made my AD review on this draft. The draft
is OK and has been sent for IETF Last Call.

Jari