Subject: [Mip6] Request to progress MIP6 WG I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-ha-switch-03.txt

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:21:32 -0500

Hi Jari,

The MIP6 WG I-D: Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message
<draft-ietf-mip6-ha-switch-03.txt> has completed working group last
call in March 07. The document is ready for IESG review and to be
progressed for publication. This I-D is intended to be progressed as a
standards track document.

The IESG writeup for the I-D is included below.

-Basavaraj

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

   (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 this I-D and believe it is ready for IESG review and
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 reviewed as part of the WG last call. It has
also been discussed previously and been presented to the WG in several
meetings. I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews 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?

I believe that the document has been reviewed sufficiently and there
is no need for further reviews or to broaden the scope of the
reviews. The complexity of the I-D and enhancement to base MIP6 being
proposed in this I-D is fairly small and hence the current level of
reviews is sufficient.

   (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.

No issues or concerns exist with this I-D.

   (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 on this I-D. I believe the WG (majority)
understands this I-D and the need for the extension being proposed.

   (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 discontent has been expressed about this I-D in the WG. There has
been no issue about appeals against the I-D being made.

   (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.

I have verified the I-D via the ID-nits checker and it has reported no
errors. 

   (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].

References have been split into normative and informative
sections. There are no normative references which are not ready for
advancement at this time.

   (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 considerations section exists and is satisfactory. The
document does not propose any new registries.

   (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?

This question is not applicable to the current I-D. There are no MIB
definitions, BNF rules or XML code in this I-D.

   (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 a new Mobility Header message type that can
   be used between a home agent and mobile node to signal a mobile node
   that it should acquire a new home agent.

          Working Group Summary

This I-D has been presented to the WG and discussed in WG meetings
several times. There is strong consensus on the need for the message
extension being specified in this I-D.

          Document Quality

No known implementations of this protocol extension exist at the
present time. However there is interest by several vendors in
implementing this extenstion. All the relevant reviewers have been
acknowledged. The I-D has not been reviewed by MIB doctors since it
does not specify a MIB.

          Personnel

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko

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