Subject: [manet] Request to publish draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt - write-up included

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:51:49 +0530

I would like to request that draft-ietf-manet-iana-05.txt be
published. I am the shepherding AD.
Ian

===WRITE-UP===

   1. 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.

   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 reviewed. NO there is no concern about the reviews.

   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.

   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
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.

   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?

STRONG - Several other WG documents contain normative references to this ID.

   6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in  separate
email to the Responsible Area Director.

NO.

   7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
ID Checklist items ?

YES.

   8. 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.)

YES.

   9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
Standard, Informational?)

Proposed Standard.

  10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections:

          * Technical Summary

This document requests IANA allocate a UDP port and link-local
multicast addresses (IPv4 & IPv6) for communication between MANET
routers.

          * Working Group Summary

Three WG protocols use link-local messaging for coordination among
MANET routers. All these protocols will use the IANA allocations laid
out in this document. There was discussion of whether site-local
multicast addresses should be allocated. The WG decided to not
allocate site-local multicast addresses at this time, because they are
not required by the current WG documents.

          * Protocol Quality

This document does not define a protocol. It specifies IANA
allocations for other WG protocols.

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:01:18 +0200

> published. I am the shepherding AD.

SOrry... can one be a shepherding AD without being an AD?  This is 
confusing to my mind...

Thanks,

Alex

> allocations for other WG protocols.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:03:49 +0530

Whoops - typo, it should read - I am the shepherding WG chair.

Ian