Subject: [Mip4] Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt to Informational RFC

From: "McCann Peter-A001034" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:19:43 -0400

This is a request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt
to
Informational 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 both by the mip4 working group
and members of the radext working group.  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?

No concerns.

>    (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 requirements 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?

Only nits found are 3 unused references in the Informative References
section.  These documents may provide useful context for the work
even though they aren't referenced in the text.  I would be ok with
removing them if the RFC Editor wishes.

>    (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 its references into Normative and Informative.
The intended status of the document is Informational so there are no 
downward references.  However, there is one Normative reference 
[zorn-radius-keywrap] which is still only an internet-draft.

None of the Informative references are actually used in the text.

>    (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 document contains no parameter assignments.  The IANA considerations
section notes this.

>    (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

This document defines a set of goals and a set of non-goals for
RADIUS extensions to handle Mobile IPv4 key distribution.  Among
the goals are the definition of new attributes, backwards compatibility,
and turning FAs and HAs into RADIUS clients.  Among the non-goals
are any RADIUS extensions to support security, transport reliability,
or the size of the available message set.  Together, the goals and
non-goals serve to define and limit the scope of the Mobile IPv4
RADIUS work that will take place when this document is approved.

>           Working Group Summary

The document completed last call in the mip4 working group in May, 2007.
It was also reviewed by selected members of the RADEXT working group.

>           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, 11 Jun 2007 10:45:32 +0300

Pete, authors,

I have made my AD review on this, and sent the
draft forward to IETF Last Call. The document
looks good. I did see one typo and marked it in
the tracker so that the RFC Editor will take
care of it.

I also have an ongoing discussion with
the RADEXT chairs and the authors about the
normative dependency to draft-zorn; I worry
a little bit about dependencies to drafts without
WG status, and also it was unclear to me whether
the reference actually has to be normative,
particularly in a requirements draft. When that
discussion completes we can make the necessary
change if needed, along with any other changes
resulting from the IETF Last Call and IESG review.

Jari