Subject: Submission of draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-04 for publications as Informational

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:53:30 -0700

(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?

I am the shepherd for this document. I have read this version, and  
believe that it is ready for publication as an RFC.

    (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?

I believe that it has had adequate review. It was originally posted  
in March 2006 and discussed in that meeting of the working group, and  
resubmitted as a working group document in May of that year. It was  
proposed as an extension of the v6ops broadband work, specifically  
addressing 802.16/Wimax networks. There were various issues raised  
and dealt with during subsequent revisions. Comment on the mailing  
list came from Jonne Soininen, Brian Carpenter, Eric Klein, Bruno  
Miguel Sousa (speaking for the 16NG working group in a solicited  
review), Jim Bound, and JinHyeock Choi. A review was also solicited  
from mip6; I believe that the response was directly to the authors,  
as I have no copy of it. The document was last-called in January 2007  
and sent to the Area Director, David Kessens, in February, who  
responded asking whether we had received any comments to the effect  
that the document was needed. In a re-last-call in April, undertaken  
to solicit additional review and address the AD's concern, the  
comments both in the meeting and on the list were supportive, and  
specifically Jim Bound stated that he considered the draft to be  
helpful in 802.16 deployment.

    (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?

Given that review has already occurred in v6ops, mip6, and 16ng, I  
don't see a need for further review.

    (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.

If such concerns exist, they have not been raised to me.

           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 IPR disclosure was discussed in the working group. I looked at  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_search.cgi a moment ago,  
which reported:
> Internal Server Error
>
> The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and  
> was unable to complete your request.
>
> Please contact the server administrator, [email-masked] and  
> inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might  
> have done that may have caused the error.
>
> More information about this error may be available in the server  
> error log.
    (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?

IPv6 Operations tends to be a group in which projects are done by  
small groups with relevant expertise and reviewed by others. The  
sense I have had in meetings and on the list has been that there is  
general support. That said, the primary cognitive input has come from  
the authors and a few others, listed above.

    (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 such conflicts have been brought to my attention.

    (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.

yes. I note the iddnits report here. The "intended status" of the  
document is "informational, not "proposed standard" as the tool  
presumed, and the "unused reference" was in fact used but broken  
across a line ending. The normative reference to RFC 4779 is a  
spurious note given that both 4779 and this document are informative.  
The other checklist items were not issues with this document.

The RFC Editor will note that the authors speak English as a second  
language, which will necessitate a certain level of copy editing. I  
find the document quite readable even so, so this should not be onerous.

> idnits 2.04.09
> - The downloaded file seems to be corrupt, proceeding with outdated  
> information.)
>
> tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-04.txt:
> - Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.)
>
>   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by  
> RFC 4748:
>    
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id- 
> guidelines.txt:
>    
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
>
>   == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming  
> Proposed
>      Standard
>
>
>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
>    
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>    
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>    
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
>
>      (See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
>      lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>   == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis' is  
> defined on
>      line 657, but no explicit reference was found in the
>      text
>      '[I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis] Koodli, R., "Fast  
> Handovers for...'
>
>   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4779
>
>
>      Summary: 1 error (**), 2 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----------

    (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 it has divided its references. The "normative" references are all  
to RFCs, and therefore have no publication issue.

    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
           Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
           of the document?

The document creates no registries, and says as much in its IANA  
considerations section.

    (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?

There are no such sections.

    (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 document provides a detailed description of IPv6 deployment and  
integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access  
networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. It discusses the  
main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access networks, their  
differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks, and how IPv6 is deployed  
and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16 technologies.

Working Group Summary

The document was reviewed by participants from both the IPv6  
Operations WG and the 16NG Working Group. No lingering concerns  
remained as it completed its review.

Document Quality

As described in the IPv6 Operations charter, this document's purpose  
was to review the issues that might arise in deploying IPv6 in an  
IEEE 802.16 network. The document uses "IEEE 802.16" as essentially  
equivalent to "Wimax", although one could argue that they differ. It  
builds on the structure and considerations of RFC 4779, which is a  
more general document looking at IPv6 deployment in broadband  
networks in general. It notes issues such as the fact that 802.16 QoS  
definitions differ from and have to be operationally mapped to IP  
Differentiated Services concepts, and specifically comments on the  
use of IPv6 Multicast, QoS, Security, and Network Management in IEEE  
802.16 fixed and mobile access networks.

Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Fred Baker. The Responsible AD is Ron Bonica.