Subject: [Mipshop] Request to progress MISPHOP WG ID - draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 22:02:33 -0400

Hello,

The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "Mobility Services Framework Design"
(draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution) has completed WG last call. It is now
ready to move forward in the process. The document shepherd write-up for
the I-D is below. The 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 and folks who are 
active in the IEEE 802.21 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.  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 specific concerns.

The MIPSHOP WG received numerous liaison statements from the 
IEEE 802.21 WG supporting this work. The solution described in 
the document is supposed to provide a Layer 3 protocol for 
transport of the handover assist information. The IEEE 802.21
WG also provided the requirements for the solution.

An IPR was disclosed regarding this document. Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/932/. This was posted on the 
MIPSHOP WG mailing list. There was no objection to progress the 
document. 

   (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.

The document meets all the requirements. There were three minor 
nits. 1) One line that is longer than 72 characters 2) An unused 
reference 3) Reference to a wrong version of 
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc. I believe these are 
minor nits that can be fixed in the next version of the document.

   (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. The document has normative 
dependencies on draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery and 
draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options. These documents will also 
be sent to the IESG soon. Note that these extensions are not 
necessary for someone to understand the solution framework 
described in the document.

   (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.

This document describes a solution for discovering IEEE 802.21 
Media Independent Handover (MIH) servers (called the MoS server) 
and a transport layer mechanism for the reliable delivery of MIH 
messages.

          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?

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 are no known implementations or vendor plans to implement 
the specification.

          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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop