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

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:10:51 -0700

FYI.

Subject: Request to forward to the IESG, MISPHOP ID - draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key
From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:09:58 -0700

Hi Jari, Mark,

The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "Distributing a Symmetric FMIPv6 Handover Key using 
SEND" (draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-02.txt) 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. 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 were a few minor
nits about additional spacing between words in a few paragraphs.
These nits will be fixed in the next revision of the draft.

    (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-fmipv6-rfc4068bis. 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. No new IANA registries are
created.

    (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.

      Fast Mobile IPv6 requires that a Fast Binding Update is secured
      using a security association shared between an Access Router and a
      Mobile Node in order to avoid certain attacks. In this document, a
      method for provisioning a shared key from the Access Router to the
      Mobile Node is defined to protect this signaling. The key exchange
      messages are required to have SEND security; that is, the source
      address is a CGA and the messages are signed using the CGA private
      key of the sending node.

           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 no known implementations of the proposed protocol. 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