Subject: [Mip6] Request to progress MIP6 WG I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-07.txt

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:50:57 -0500

Hi Jari,

The MIP6 WG I-D: DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6
<draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-07.txt> has completed WG last call and has
been revised based on the comments received. The last call was issued
in the MIP6 and DHC working groups and feedback from members in both
working groups have been incorporated.

The I-D is now ready for IESG review and progressing it. The document
shepherding template as per RFC4858 is attached below.

This I-D is intended for publication as a standards track RFC.

-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 version of the 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?

Yes. The document has been reviewed extensively by MIP6 WG
members. Additionally this I-D has been reviewed by members of the DHC
WG as well. No concerns about the depth or breadth of review by the
document shepherd exist.

   (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 further review from security, AAA or XML experts is needed for this I-D.

   (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 concerns or issues about this I-D exist. This I-D has been in WG
discussion for quite sometime now and has been presented and discussed
at several WG meetings as well.

   (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?

WG consensus is solid. The WG as a whole understands the need for
using DHCP for bootstrapping and hence I believe it is not the opinion
of just a few individuals but the broader WG.

   (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 appeals have been threatened or any other action. No serious
discontent to be noted exists either.

   (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.

The draft has been run through  the ID-nits checker tool.

   (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 split references into normative and informative sections.

   (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?

I have verified the IANA considerations section and it provides enough
information for IANA to act on it.

   (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?

The document does not have any XML code, BNF or MIB specification.

   (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 draft defines a DHCP-based scheme to enable dynamic discovery of
   Mobile IPv6 home network information.  New DHCP options are defined
   which allow a mobile node to request the home agent IP address, FQDN,
   or home subnet prefix and obtain it via the DHCP response.

          Working Group Summary

   The I-D initially also had the Home address (HoA) as a DHCP
   option. Concerns about this were expressed and subsequently deleted
   from the I-D. The WG has a good understanding of the use of DHCP
   for bootstrapping and consensus exists on publishing it.

          Document Quality

   No known implementations of the DHCP options specified in the I-D
   exists. However there has been interest expressed in using these
   options in other organizations such as WiMAX forum. Several vendors
   have expressed plans to implement these options for MIP6
   bootstrapping. 

   All reviewers have been acknowledged.

          Personnel

Document shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko

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