[16NG] Advancing the document: Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks

[Daniel Park <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari, 

The 16ng WG document, "Analysis of IPv6 Link Model for
802.16 based Networks" has completed its WGLC. It's ready
for the advancement. 

o Filename: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-02
o Intended Publication: Informational RFC
o Document shepherd write-up for the ID: Below

==============================================================

Document shepherd questions and writeup format (21 November 2006)

   (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?

Daniel Park is the Document Shepherd for this document. I've reviewed
this document and it is ready for advancing 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?

Many 802.16 and IPv6 experts reviewed this document. This document 
is result of a Design Team including the 16ng WG technical advisors, 
IEEE 802.16 liaison as well as WiMAX key members that was formed to 
analysis the IPv6 link models for 802.16 networks. This document went 
through the 2 weeks WGLC in the 16ng WG. I have no concern 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?

No nits found. There is a minor nit in RFC 3978 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 its references into normative and informative.
In Normative References, [3]'s WGLC ended on October last year
and several comments as well as expert reviews happened to this
document. After revision, it will be ready for advancement soon.

   (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. This document has no 
actions for 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 to this document.

   (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.

Relevent content can frequently and easily be found in the abstract and
introduction of this document. This document explains different IPv6 link 
models that are suitable for 802.16 based networks and analyzes them 
and their applicability under different deployment scenarios.

          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?

This document suggests a couple of link model to be used for 802.16
networks. Ethernet like link model would be used when the deployment
requires the use of Ethernet CS. For IPv6CS, point-to-point link model
appears to the choice because of its simplicity for performing the DAD
and does not break any existing applications or require defining any 
new protocol. Those will be implemented in 802.16 networks soon.
The quality of the document is good.

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

Daniel Park is the Document Shepherd for this document.
Jari Arkko is the Responsible Area Director.

==============================================================

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng