Subject: [Mip4] Request for publication of draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:43:58 +0100

This is a request to the IESG to consider draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution
(a mip4 WG document) for publication as BCP.

Here is the shepherd document write-up for the draft, according to the
template at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html:

>   (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?

	Henrik Levkowetz is the document shepherd, has reviewed this
	version of the document, and believes that this version is
	ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication as a BCP
	after the items found by idnits has been cleaned up.

>   (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?

	Yes, yes, no.

>   (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.

>   (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 concerns.

>   (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?

	At the time of last call, I believe the WG understood and agreed
	with it.  No disagreement has appeared later, but with changing
	constituency, all may not be familiar with the contents today.

>   (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.

>   (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?

	Verified.

>   (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].

	Split references, yes; no normative downrefs, unclear refs,
	or refs to documents which are not ready.

>   (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?

	All verified and OK.

>   (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?

	N/A.

>   (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 outlines a solution for the Mobile IPv4 and IPsec
   	coexistence problem for enterprise users.  The solution consists of
   	an applicability statement for using Mobile IPv4 and IPsec for
   	session mobility in corporate remote access scenarios, and a required
   	mechanism for detecting the trusted internal network securely.  The
   	solution requires only changes to the mobile node; changes to Mobile
   	IPv4 or IPsec protocols, the VPN gateway, or the home agent are not
   	required.

>          Working Group Summary

	This document is a product of the MIP4 working group, emerging
	from the work done by the VPN traversal design team.

>          Document Quality

	This document has been reviewed in particular by Vijay Devarapalli
	and Henrik Levkowetz.

-- 

	Henrik

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/