[16NG] Requesting publications as proposed standard: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06
gabriel montenegro <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com> Tue, 24 June 2008 16:25 UTC
Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B633A69B5; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B3E3A69EC for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P4Ususz9M55o for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.207.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 768DB3A69B5 for <16ng@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 40209 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Jun 2008 16:18:20 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=wnxBQ/OFqoyABNM1OhpZ1h9oplm3kLTSIIYTra9ZTCbkU3oavb3XJLnlmWfZDTpC3sNn8sh//Lu/Rru0raC09x6IPMIqXe3WU1pQbhuEu4g/4hhnCm33GY7XmlZwCpU9yJZ+KfuAXk+3ArvcGFazVV+SOevVb9Kw6jbzCUu1YEo=;
X-YMail-OSG: k37I4F8VM1mxE41U9wusW5lJaevfTpE1C66vzktbvoL0yXgj4YpqSyT4angH6AuAvuWKr7G6_XNjiO.4.foz7HPvCQ64JKjVZa.ewqXuGQWOLeNuOMBRrQ--
Received: from [24.16.82.16] by web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:18:20 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/975.45 YahooMailWebService/0.7.185
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:18:20 -0700
From: gabriel montenegro <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com>
To: jari.arkko@ericsson.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <826498.39489.qm@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Cc: 16ng@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [16NG] Requesting publications as proposed standard: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
Jari and IESG, This is a request from the 16ng WG for publication as proposed standard of: Transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06 Please find the document writeup below. thanks, -gabriel, on behalf of 16ng ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 1, 2007. (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? Gabriel Montenegro. Yes and yes. (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? Proper review including IEEE 802.16 and WiMAX folks in addition to the IETF. There was a first WG LC ending on September 7. The resulting revision was subjected to detailed review by the IEEE 802.16 committee. That feedback was discussed at IETF 71 in Philadelphia and the relevant changes incorporated. The document was submitted to a second WG last call subsequent to Philadelphia and those changes have been fed into the current version being submitted to the IESG with this note (version 6). (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 received more than enough review. (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 issues. (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? Quite solid after much discussion at several meetings and two WG LCs. Consensus is also solid given that it represents the support of the WiMAX Forum and its IETF participants: this document is referenced by WiMAX forum specifications. (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 appeals threatened. (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? Yes. There is one issue with the file name: ** Bad filename characters: the document name given in the document, 'draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06', contains other characters than digits, lowercase letters and dash. (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. No issue with the normative references. (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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. 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? No IANA implications as documented in the IANA section. (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? Not applicable. (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 describes the transmission of IPv4 over Ethernet as well as IPv6 over Ethernet in an access network deploying the IEEE 802.16 cellular radio transmission technology. The Ethernet on top of IEEE 802.16 is realized by bridging connections which the IEEE 802.16 provides between a base station and its associated subscriber stations. Due to the resource constraints of radio transmission systems and the limitations of the IEEE 802.16 MAC functionality for the realization of an Ethernet, the transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 may considerably benefit by adding IP specific support functions in the Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 while maintaining full compatibility with standard IP over Ethernet behavior. Working Group Summary The document underwent much discussion, sometimes heated on topics such as distributed versus centralized bridges, whether to use the point-to-multipoint “multicast” capabilities of the 802.16 link-layer, and about the proper choice of MTU. The document captures consensus and includes some of the relevant discussions including pros and cons of decisions taken. The appendix of the document includes much text in this respect. Document Quality This document was produced with the appropriate expertise, as it benefitted from the efforts within the IETF of many participants in IEEE 802.16 and the WiMAX Forum, including formal reviews from relevant experts in those bodies. This document is being referenced by WiMAX Forum specifications (end) _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
- [16NG] Requesting publications as proposed standa… gabriel montenegro
- [16NG] Requesting publications as proposed standa… gabriel montenegro