Subject: [dna] Request to advance draft-ietf-dna-simple-06.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:36:50 -0400

Dear Internet ADs,

   The chairs of the dna working group, on behalf of the working group,
request that the following document be published as a Proposed Standard.

Title : Simple procedures for Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6
Filename: draft-ietf-dna-simple-06.txt

PROTO Information
=================

Shepherd: N/A

Technical Summary
=================

Working Group Summary
=====================
The dna working group reached consensus on this document during the face
to face meetings and on the DNA mailing list. There was strong support
for the document from key contributors to the WG and no opposition.

Protocol Quality
================
This document and has been reviewed by the dna working group and the
required changes have been incorporated into the document.

PROTO Questionnare
==================

1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
      Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
      to forward to the IESG for publication?
-> Yes.

1.b) 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. There have been no comments from the 6man working group list,
and since this is an update to neighbor discovery (RFC4861), this is
concerning.

1.c) 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.

1.d) 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 have concerns whether there really is a need for
      it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
      and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
      document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
-> No.

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?
-> Strong support from key contributors to the WG and no opposition from
the WG members at large.

1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email to the Responsible Area Director.
-> No.

1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
      ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
-> Yes.

1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
      Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
      also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
      (note here that 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 is split into normative and informative references.
There are no normative references to IDs, which are not ready for
advancement.