Subject: [Mipshop] Request to forward to the IESG MIPSHOP ID: draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-02.txt

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:16:33 -0800

Hi Jari, Mark,

The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile
IPv6" (draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-02.txt) has completed WG
last call. It is ready to move forward in the process. The
document shepherd write-up for the I-D is below. That status
sought for this document is Proposed Standard.

Vijay

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

    (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?

Vijay Devarapalli is the Document Shepherd for this document.
I have reviewed the document and it is ready for forwarding
to the IESG for publication.

    (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?

This document has been reviewed by numerous folks, including
folks who are proficient in IP Mobility and Security. The
protocol enhancements described in this document were first
done in the IRTF research group, MOBOPTS. Once they were
considered mature, the document was brought to the MIPSHOP WG
for standardization in the IETF. This document went through a
WG last call in the MIPSHOP WG. I have no concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

    (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?

None.

    (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.

None.

    (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?

There is strong WG consensus in advancing this document.

    (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?

The document meets all the requirements. There is a minor nit
in RFC 2119 boilerplate that was reported by the idnits tool.
This will be fixed in the subsequent revision.

    (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].

The document splits the references into normative and
Informative references. There are no normative references
that could of concern.

    (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 suggested a
           reasonable name for the new registry?  See
           [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

The IANA considerations section exists and is consistent
with the body of the document.  The document requests
reservations in the appropriate IANA registries. The IANA
registries that need to be modified are clearly identified.
This document does not create a new registry. However the
IANA considerations section could do a better job by
listing all the new mobility options that need to be
assigned. This will be fixed in the next revision.

    (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?

Does not apply.

    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
           Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
           "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
           announcement contains the following sections:

           Technical Summary
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

    This document specifies Enhanced Route Optimization, an amendment to
    route optimization in base Mobile IPv6.  Enhanced Route Optimization
    secures a mobile node's home address against impersonation through an
    interface identifier that is cryptographically and verifiably bound
    [6] to the public component of the mobile node's public/private-key
    pair.  Enhanced Route Optimization further allows mobile and
    correspondent nodes to resume bidirectional communications in
    parallel with pursuing a care-of address test.  The latency of the
    home and care-of address tests are therefore eliminated in most
    cases.  The use of cryptographically generated home addresses also
    mitigates the threat of impersonators that can interpose on the home
    address test and thereby facilitate longer binding lifetimes.  This
    leads to increased security and a reduction in signaling overhead.

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
              example, was there controversy about particular points or
              were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
              rough?

None.

           Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
              conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
              review, on what date was the request posted?

There is no information currently available on implementations
or any vendors plans. The quality of the document is good.

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
              Responsible Area Director?

Document shepherd: Vijay Devarapalli
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko/Mark Townsley (Jari is one of the authors
                                           of the document).

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