Subject: [Mip4] Publication Request: draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-06.txt

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:10:35 +0100

Hi,

This is a request to the IESG to consider draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-06.txt
for publication as an RFC.

I enclose the Document Shepherd Questionnaire, below.

Regards,

	Henrik

------------------------------------------------------------------------

   (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?

	* Henrik Levkowetz, MIP4 co-chair
	* Reviewed, yes
	* Ready, yes.
	  RFC-editor: please change "IPv6 packetm" to "IPv6 packet,"
	  in para. 10 of Section 4.3.2.

   (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
	* No

   (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

   (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
	* No IPR disclosures

   (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?

	* The WG last call was generally positive, but raised some
	  issues.  These have all been handled in version -06.

   (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 threat of appeal or other discontent.

   (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?

	* Idnits check passed, plus manual verification as needed, including:
		- Network byte order
		- IANA considerations
		- Author Address
		- Meaningful Abstract
		- Meaningful Security Considerations
		- Not outdateable text
		- Protocol behaviour characteristics

   (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].

	* Reference split OK (this is covered by 1.g)
	* No references to documents not ready for advancements
	* No downward refs

   (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?

	* IANA considerations verified (this is covered by 1.g)
	* All other items of 1.i verified

   (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

	*   "This specification provides extensions to the Mobile IPv4
	    protocol, which allow a dual stack node to use both IPv4 and
	    IPv6 home addresses, while moving between IPv4 and dual stack
	    network attachment points."

          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?

	* Nothing to note.

          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?

	* The protocol has been implemented by Flarion, and an internal
	  implementation has also been made at IPunplugged.  The shepherd
	  does not have further knowledge of implementation plans (although
	  he'd guess that Cisco has already implemented this, and if not,
	  will shortly do so).
-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/