Subject: [Mip6] Please progress I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-ro-sec-02

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:30:06 -0500

Hello,

The MIP6 WG I-D "Mobile IP version 6 Route Optimization Security Design
Background",  
draft-ietf-mip6-ro-sec-02 has completed working group last
call. All issues have been closed and the I-D being submitted for IESG
consideration is the revised one that incorporates all the changes
made as a result of the WG LC.
We would like the document to be reviewed by the IESG and progressed
for publication as Informational RFC.

URL to I-D:
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-ro-sec-02.txt

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

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?

The I-D has been reviewed by a sufficient number of people. The I-D
provides the background information on the security design of the RO
protocol for MIPv6. The WG had a design team in 2001/2 that discussed
various types of threats and issues that went into the design of
RO. This discussion and design information is being published in this
I-D. 
We (chairs) do not have concerns about the depth and breadth of the
reviews performed on this I-D.

Issues raised during last call and their resolutions are available at:
http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/

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 MIP6 RO mechanism is already incorporated in RFC 3775. The
information contained in this I-D are details of discussions and
design choices that went into the currently specified RO mechanism. 
   
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. 
   
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 RO design background is useful material for MIP6 implementers and
people who would like to understand the logic and reasoning that went
into it. It also acts as good information for people developing
alternate RO mechanisms or optimizations to RO.

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

No.
   
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 only has Informative references.

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

   - Technical Summary
   - Working Group Summary
   - Protocol Quality

The I-D is being proposed to be published as an Informational RFC.

-Basavaraj

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