Subject: [Mipshop] Request for publication of draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:15:14 -0800

The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers for 3G CDMA Networks"
(draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-04.txt) has completed WG last call. This is
a request to the IESG to consider draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh for
publication as Informational.

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. 3GPP2 review might
have been a good thing to have, but never got any response from
3GPP2.

   (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 couple of minor issues. 2461 is referred instead of
4861. The document uses "MUST not" instead of "MUST NOT" in one
instance. This 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 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/created are clearly identified.

   (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.

    Mobile IPv6 is designed to maintain its connectivity while moving
    from one network to another.  It is adopted in 3G CDMA networks as a
    way to maintain connectivity when the mobile node moves between
    access routers.  However, this handover procedure requires not only
    movement detection by the MN, but also the acquisition of a new
    care-of address and Mobile IPv6 registration with the new care-of
    address before the traffic can be sent or received in the target
    network.  During this period, packets destined for the mobile node
    may be lost, which may not be acceptable for real-time application
    such as Voice over IP (VoIP) or video telephony.  This document
    specifies fast handover methods in the 3G CDMA networks in order to
    reduce latency and packet loss during handover.

          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?

Nothing is known about existing implementations or plans for
implementation.

          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