Subject: [Pana] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-pana-statemachine-09.txt as informational RFC

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:20:11 +0100

Hi Jari,

The PANA state machine I-D <draft-ietf-pana-statemachine-09.txt> is now
ready for being progressed towards
publication as an Informational RFC. It has completed WG LC and has
been reviewed and revised. Below is the shepherd writeup for the same.

-Basavaraj

   (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?

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil.
I have reviewed this version of the I-D and believe it is ready to be
forwarded 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?

The document has been reviewed adequately by WG members and non-WG
members. I do not have any concerns about the breadth of depth 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?

No. The document has been adequately reviewed. No further reviews are
necessary.

   (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/issues with the document exist. This document is
intended to be pulished as an Informational RFC and it is primarily
targeted at implementers of PANA protocol to better understand the
state machine.

   (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?

Two WG last calls have been run. The WG is solidly in support of 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 threats of appeals have been made. Nor is there any discontent
among any of the WG members and participants.

   (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.

Yes.
Output of the IDnits tool:
Summary: 0 errors (**), 4 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

   (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].

Yes. The references are split into normative and informative ones.
No open-ended references exist.

   (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 does have an IANA considerations section. The document
does not specify any IANA actions.

   (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?

Document does not use any XML code or BNF rules etc.

   (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
   This document defines the state machines for Protocol Carrying
   Authentication for Network Access (PANA) [RFC5191].  There are state
   machines for the PANA client (PaC) and for the PANA Authentication
   Agent (PAA).  Each state machine is specified through a set of
   variables, procedures and a state transition table.

          Working Group Summary

The WG has reviewed this document at length. It has also been
presented and discussed at several WG meetings. Two WG last calls have
also been run on it. The WG is satisfied with the quality of the
document and there is consensus on publishing it.

          Document Quality
Implemenations of PANA protocol itself exist. This I-D is intended to
be published as an Informational RFC. It captures the state machine of
the PANA protocol. The quality of the document is satisfactory.

          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: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko

No IANA experts are needed since it does not specify any IANA actions.

_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:01:50 +0200

Thanks. Its now on my queue. I will read it, but probably after the BOF 
decisions which have to be taken next week.

Jari