Subject: [Mipshop] [Fwd: Request to forward to the IESG, MISPHOP ID - draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis]

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:59:56 -0700

FYI.

Subject: Request to forward to the IESG, MISPHOP ID - draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis
From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:59:26 -0700

Hi Jari, Mark,

The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6" 
(draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis) has completed WG last call. It is 
now ready to move forward in the process. The document shepherd write-up 
for the I-D is below. The status sought for this document is Proposed 
Standard.

Vijay

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

    (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?

Vijay Devarapalli is the Document Shepherd for this document. I
have reviewed the document and it is ready for forwarding to the
IESG for publication.

    (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?

This document has been reviewed by numerous folks, including
folks who are proficient in IP Mobility and Security. The
protocol described in this document was first published as RFC
4068 as an Experimental specification. The protocol is now
considered mature with the security issues addressed. So it is
being advanced on the Standards Track now. This document went
through a WG last call in the MIPSHOP WG. I have no concerns
about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
performed.

    (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?

None.

    (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.

None.

    (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?

There is WG consensus in advancing this document.

    (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.

    (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.

The document meets all the requirements. There is a minor nit
about RFC 2119 boilerplate that was reported by the idnits tool.
But there seems to be a RFC 2119 boilerplate in the Terminology
section.

    (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].

The document splits the references into normative and Informative
references. This document has a normative dependency on an yet to
be published document - draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key. But this
draft is also being advanced to the IESG at the same time.

    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
           Considerations 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 the Document
           Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
           the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section exists and is consistent with
the body of the document.  The document requests reservations in
the appropriate IANA registries. The IANA registries that need to
be modified/created are clearly identified.

    (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?

Does not apply.

    (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
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

    Mobile IPv6 enables a Mobile Node to maintain its connectivity to the
    Internet when moving from an Access Router to another, a process
    referred to as handover.  During this time, the Mobile Node is unable
    to send or receive packets due to both link switching delay and IP
    protocol operations.  The "handover latency" resulting from standard
    Mobile IPv6 procedures, namely, movement detection, new Care of
    Address configuration and Binding Update, is often unacceptable to
    real-time traffic such as Voice over IP.  Reducing the handover
    latency could be beneficial to non real-time, throughput-sensitive
    applications as well.  This document specifies a protocol to improve
    handover latency due to Mobile IPv6 procedures.

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
              For example, was there controversy about particular points
              or were there decisions where the consensus was
              particularly rough?

None.

           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?

There are a few implementations of the proposed protocol available
already. There has also been one interop event where two
implementations were tested. The quality of the document is good.

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
              Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
              experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
              in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Document shepherd: Vijay Devarapalli
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko/Mark Townsley

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

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