Subject: [Mip6] MIP6: Submitting I-D draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-03 for AD/IESG review

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:53:46 -0500

Hi Margaret,

The MIP6 WG has completed last call on the bootstrap problem statement
I-D. The I-D is now ready for AD and IESG review. Below are details
about the I-D:

Title: Problem Statement for bootstrapping Mobile IPv6
I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-03.txt

Status: Informational 

Response to template:

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?

Yes. The ID has been discussed in several IETF meetings and has also
been reviewed by key WG members.

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 document is a problem statement and hence does not really
require very wide cross-area reviews. It has been reviewed by people
from the MIP6 WG who are also considered as experts in the security
and operational areas.
   
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. There are no issues.
   
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 a strong consensus in the WG supporting this work.

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. An output of the run on this revision of the ID by the online nits
checker:
"
  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
    
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

    the boilerplate looks good.
    No nits found.

  Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
    Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
    1id-guidelines.txt yet).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
    None.

    No nits found.
"
   
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 references into normative and informative
ones. 

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

Status sought for this ID is Informational.

-Basavaraj

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