Subject: [Mipshop] Request for publication of draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis-01.txt

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:35:15 -0800

The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management
(HMIPv6)" (draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis) has completed WG last call.
This is a request to the IESG to consider draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis
for publication as Proposed Standard.

The document shepherd write-up for the I-D is below.

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 adequately reviewed.

   (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?

There is WG consensus in advancing this document.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Idnits found a few minor issues. There was boiler plate issues
related to the IPR statement and the validity of internet drafts.
However, the relevant sections are there in the document. There
were a couple of references defined, but not referenced anywhere
in the document. The intended status "Proposed Standard" is
missing in the document. The document also needs to say that it
obsoletes RFC 4140. These will be fixed in the next 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 downward references.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document makes no request from IANA.

   (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 Write-Up.  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 introduces extensions to Mobile IPv6 and IPv6 Neighbour
    Discovery to allow for local mobility handling.  Hierarchical
    mobility management for Mobile IPv6 is designed to reduce the amount
    of signalling between the Mobile Node, its Correspondent Nodes, and
    its Home Agent.  The Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) described in this
    document can also be used to improve the performance of Mobile IPv6
    in terms of handover speed.

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

No.

          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 are at least two implementations of HMIPv6. Nothing is known
about vendor plans. This document revises RFC 4140, which was an
Informational document.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Document shepherd: Vijay Devarapalli
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko/Mark Townsley

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

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

---

From: "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:40:49 +1000

> about vendor plans. This document revises RFC 4140, which was an

=> 4140 was actually experimental.

Hesham