Subject: [16NG] Request for publication as proposed standard: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-06.txt

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:02:21 -0800 (PST)

Jari,

On behalf of the 16ng WG, please find below the request to publish
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-06.txt as a proposed standard.

thanks,

-16ng co-chairs (gab and daniel)
--------------------------------------------------------
Document writeup for 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-06.txt

Target: Proposed Standard

Document shepherd questions and writeup format (21 November 2006)

   (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?

            Gabriel Montenegro, the shepherding co-chair, has read this
            version and thinks it is ready to advance.

   (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?

            There has been considerable review on this draft from WG members,
            an AD and the WG's technical advisors. It has also been the subject
            of discussion in face-to-face meetings at regular IETF
            sessions as well as an interim meeting last September.
            Also very important is the review done at the WiMax forum,
            where this document is now being referred to from their
            specifications. 

   (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 there is sufficient review. This document has 
            undergone two WG LC periods, an initial 2-week period in
            October and a shorter 1-week period which ended on Jan 5.

   (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.

            None.

   (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 consensus behind the approach. There was 
            considerable discussion during both WG LC period. In particular,
            this version clarifies some points discussed during the last
            WG LC related to multicast support, router discovery and some
            additional information about the 802.16 procedures.

   (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?

            No issues found.

   (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].

            No issues here.

   (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?

            IANA section does not require any actions.

   (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 sections.

   (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 

            This document specifies the addressing and operation of IPv6 over
            the IPv6 specific part of the packet CS for hosts served by a
            network that utilizes the IEEE Std 802.16 air interface. It
            recommends the assignment of a unique prefix (or prefixes) to each
            host and allows the host to use multiple identifiers within that
            prefix, including support for randomly generated identifiers.

          Working Group Summary

            There was much initial debate about the link model to adopt.
            The interim made it clear that the "per-MS" prefix was
            preferable. Beyond that, there has been debate about how much
            802.16-specific details to include (e.g., on network entry
            procedure) for clarity.

          Document Quality

            There are no currently known implementations of this document.
            However, the per-MS prefix model has been deployed in 3GPP, so 
            at least that part is known to work, and this was a major point
            in deciding in its favor. The WiMax forum sees this document as one
            of its pilars, so it is expected that it will see significant 
            deployment within the next years.

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

                Shepherd: Gabriel Montenegro
                 AD: Jari Arkko

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng