Subject: [Mip6] Request to progress MIP6 WG I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-recfgkbm-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:55:35 -0600

Hello,

The following I-D has completed WG LC. 
This is a standards track I-D and hence we request that it be
progressed as such.

Title: Precomputable Binding Management Key Kbm for Mobile IPv6
I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-recfgkbm-01.txt

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
   they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
   for publication? 

Yes. The I-D is ready for IESG review and publication.

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?

The I-D has been discussed at several IETF meetings and has been
reviewed by several people in the WG. We do not have any concerns
about the depth or breadth of reviews done on it.

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 concerns. The I-D is falrly simple and straightforward. In fact it
is only 2 pages of actual content. 
   
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 whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
   time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
   indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No issues or concerns about this I-D. There was some discussion about
the scalability of the solution. However it has been clearly explained
in the Applicability section that the solution is intended for small,
closed groups of users.
   
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?

This feature was originally dropped from the base Mobile IPv6
specification. It is mentioned in the charter as a deliverable. There
is WG consensus to publish it.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No.
   
7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
   ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.
   
8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
   and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
   also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
   (Note: 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.)

It does not split the references into normative/informative
sections. There are 2 references and there is a statement which says
that Ref 1 is normative and Ref 2 is informative.

9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
   announcement includes a writeup section with the following
   sections:

   - Technical Summary

The I-D proposes a scheme whereby a mobile node (MN) and a correspondent
node (CN) may preconfigure data which is useful for precomputing a binding
management key that can be subsequently used to authorize binding
updates and acknowledgements. This capability enables route
optimization to be performed without having to do a return-routability
test every time a BU is sent from an MN to the CN.

   - Working Group Summary

The working group has reviewed the I-D. It was recommended that a
care-of-address-test be performed in order to prove to the CN that the
MN owns the address. It was decided that the care-of-address-test
would be documented in a separate I-D and hence not incorporated in
this I-D. While the care-of-address-test is useful, it is not
essential to the proposal in this I-D.

   - Protocol Quality

No known implementations exist at this time.

I would also recommend that Christian Vogt, Jari Arkko, Francis
Dupont and Vijay Devarapalli be explicitly mentioned as people who
have reviewed this I-D.  

-Chairs

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6