Subject: [Mip6] Please progress I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:13:37 -0500

Hello,

The MIP6 WG I-D "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6", 
draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi-03.txt 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-mipext-advapi-03.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 several implementers as well as people
outside the WG. This I-D has been also discussed in the IPv6 WG and
the WG LC was notified to the IPv6 WG as well. 
We (chairs) do not have concerns about the depth and breadth of the
reviews performed on this I-D.

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 IPv6 WG is the most relevant other WG for this I-D and that WG
has been kept in the loop.
   
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. The I-D is of high quality.
   
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?

There is strong consensus on the need for an API within the WG. There
is no dissent on the I-D being progressed.

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 does split the references into normative/informative
sections. There are no I-Ds in the normative section.

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