Subject: [16NG] Requesting publications as proposed standard: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:18:20 -0700 (PDT)

Jari and IESG,

This is a request from the 16ng WG for publication as proposed standard of:

   Transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06

Please find the document writeup below.

thanks,

-gabriel, on behalf of 16ng

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

As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding,
this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time.  This version is dated February 1, 2007.

   (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?

Gabriel Montenegro. Yes and yes.

   (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?

Proper review including IEEE 802.16 and WiMAX folks in addition to the IETF. There was a first WG LC ending on September 7. The resulting revision was subjected to detailed review by the IEEE 802.16 committee. That feedback was discussed at IETF 71 in Philadelphia and the relevant changes incorporated. The document was submitted to a second WG last call subsequent to Philadelphia and those changes have been fed into the current version being submitted to the IESG with this note (version 6).

   (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?

No. The document has received more than enough review.

   (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.

No issues.

   (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?

Quite solid after much discussion at several meetings and two WG LCs. Consensus is also solid given that it represents the support of the WiMAX Forum and its IETF participants: this document is referenced by WiMAX forum specifications.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise 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 appeals threatened.

   (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?

Yes. There is one issue with the file name:

  ** Bad filename characters: the document name given in the document,
     'draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06', contains other
     characters than digits, lowercase letters and dash.

   (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].

Yes. No issue with the normative references.

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

No IANA implications as documented in the IANA section.

   (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?

Not applicable.

   (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

   This document describes the transmission of IPv4 over Ethernet as
   well as IPv6 over Ethernet in an access network deploying the IEEE
   802.16 cellular radio transmission technology.  The Ethernet on top
   of IEEE 802.16 is realized by bridging connections which the IEEE
   802.16 provides between a base station and its associated subscriber
   stations.  Due to the resource constraints of radio transmission
   systems and the limitations of the IEEE 802.16 MAC functionality for
   the realization of an Ethernet, the transmission of IP over Ethernet
   over IEEE 802.16 may considerably benefit by adding IP specific
   support functions in the Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 while maintaining
   full compatibility with standard IP over Ethernet behavior.

          Working Group Summary

The document underwent much discussion, sometimes heated on topics such as distributed versus centralized bridges, whether to use the point-to-multipoint “multicast” capabilities of the 802.16 link-layer, and about the proper choice of MTU. The document captures consensus and includes some of the relevant discussions including pros and cons of decisions taken. The appendix of the document includes much text in this respect.

          Document Quality

This document was produced with the appropriate expertise, as it benefitted from the efforts within the IETF of many participants in IEEE 802.16 and the WiMAX Forum, including formal reviews from relevant experts in those bodies. This document is being referenced by WiMAX Forum specifications

  (end)
_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng