Subject: [Mip6] Request to progress WG I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-04.txt

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:07:37 -0500

Hello,

The MIP6 WG I-D: MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario
<draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-04.txt> has completed
working group last call in March, 07.

Intended status for this I-D: Standards track

The I-D has been revised based on comments received on the list and
comments mailed to the authors. It is ready for AD and IESG review and
to be progressed to RFC status.

Below is the completed writeup (per RFC4858) as required for WG
documents: 

   (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
Yes, I have reviewed this version of the I-D and believe it is ready
for forwarding to IESG.

   (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 within the MIP6 WG. It was developed by
a design team and then subsequently discussed as an open WG document
on the mailing list. It has been reviewed by WG members as well as
non-WG members.

   (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 the document has had sufficient review and by people who
understand various aspects other than Mobile IPv6. There is no need to
have further review from other areas.

   (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 do not have any concerns or issues with the document. All issues
have been addressed in revisions of the document.

   (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 WG consensus on this bootstrapping mechanism. Strong
consensus comes from a few active WG members as is the case for most
documents. The WG I believe understands this document and the need for
the solution specified in this I-D. There are no major objections at
least to the I-D.

   (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?

Yes. I have verified the I-D for ID-nits via the tool provided in
tools.ietf.org. The I-D does not specify a MIB or media type. Hence no
formal review of such aspects in the I-D are required.

   (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. 

   (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 suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  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?

No IANA action is required from this document.

   (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.

   (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
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

   Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping can be categorized into two primary
   scenarios, the split scenario and the integrated scenario.  In the
   split scenario, the mobile node's mobility service is authorized by a
   different service authorizer than the network access authorizer.  In
   the the integrated scenario, the mobile node's mobility service is
   authorized by the same service authorizer as the network access
   service authorizer.  This document defines a method for home agent
   information discovery for the integrated scenario

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

   The design team had some differences regarding the integrated
   scenario and use of DHCP as a means for bootstrapping. However
   these issues have subsequently been clarified. The current I-D in a
   previous version included several DHCP options which are required
   for bootstrapping. These have now been specified in a separate
   I-D (draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-03.txt). This I-D is dependent on the
   DHCP options specified in the companion MIP6 WG Doc:
   draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-03.txt

          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 this protocol exist at the current
   time. However some vendors have indicated plans to implement this
   specification. This specification is also of interest in other SDOs
   such as 3GPP2 and WiMAX forum.

   Acknowledgements to the key reviewers and contributors have been
   noted. 

-Raj

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