Subject: [Mip6] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:06:49 -0600

Hello,

The following I-D has completed WG last call and we would like to
request the ADs to review the I-D and progress it forward. Details
below:

WG: MIP6
Title: Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6
I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt

Status requested: Standards track

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
   they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
   for publication? 

Yes. The chairs have reviewed it not only for technical correctness
but also for spelling and grammar.

2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
   key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
   breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes. The I-D has been reviewed sufficiently by WG
members. As WG chairs, we do not have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of reviews that this I-D has had. The I-D is fairly
straightforward and does not have a great deal of complexity.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
   particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
   complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? 

No. The I-D proposes the use of identifiers such as NAI, FQDN etc. in
the mobility header of MIP6 signaling messages. There is not a need
for broader review at this time. Especially since a similar concept is
used today in MIP4.
   
4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
   you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
   perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
   or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
   time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
   indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No specific concerns/issues. It should be noted that this I-D is
needed by 3GPP2 for Revision D of the TIA-835 specification which is
currently being worked on.
   
5) 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 WG as a whole understands the need for this I-D and there is
strong support for standardizing it.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

There have been no appeals against this I-D.
   
7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
   ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes. 
   
8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
   and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
   also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
   (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
   references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
   also ready for publication as RFCs.)

The document includes 3 normative references. Of these 2 are already
RFCs. The 3rd is a reference to RFC2486bis (Radext WG) which is
currently in state: AD Followup. 

9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
   announcement includes a writeup section with the following
   sections:

   - Technical Summary

   Mobile IPv6 defines a new Mobility header which is used by mobile
   nodes, correspondent nodes, and home agents in all messaging related
   to the creation and management of bindings.  Mobile IPv6 nodes need
   the capability to identify themselves using an identity other than
   the default home IP address.  Some examples of identifiers include
   NAI, FQDN, IMSI, MSISDN, etc.  This document defines a new mobility
   option that can be used by Mobile IP6 entities to identify themselves
   in messages containing a mobility header.

   - Working Group Summary

   The working group has discussed the need for such an identifier at
   several WG meetings as well as on the mailing list. The need for
   alternate identifiers such as NAI, IMSI etc. arises from the
   deployment needs of Mobile IPv6 by 3GPP2. 3GPP2 specification
   835-Rev D is currently being worked on and this feature has been
   identified as a necessity for incorporating Mobile IPv6 in the
   standard. WG LC has been completed. No major issues were identified
   during the last call process. 

   - Protocol Quality

   No known implementations of the protocol exist at this
   time. However there exist plans to implement this protocol since it
   is required for deployment in 3GPP2 based networks. Revision D of
   TIA 835 specifies the need for such an identifier to be included in
   the mobility header of the registration messages. 
   
-Chairs

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