[Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt
Victor Fajardo <vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com> Tue, 23 December 2008 22:07 UTC
Return-Path: <dime-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACB128C18A; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:07:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCA428C18A; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:07:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 kYu5QkdZXvZG; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCE428C180; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ns.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mBNM5kEq089628; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:05:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com)
Message-ID: <49516116.7080107@tari.toshiba.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:07:18 -0500
From: Victor Fajardo <vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com>
User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dromasca@avaya.com
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, IETF-IESG-Support via RT <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org
PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt =================================================== (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? The document shepherd is Victor Fajardo. I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready 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 is a solutions document for the MIPv6 bootstrapping problem for the split scenario. It has direct implications for authentication/authorization, provisioning and accounting of mobility resources to users. Therefore, the document has received extensive reviews by relevant WG members - under the employ of operators and parties that have associations with interested SDOs. Discrepancies found during the lifetime of this doc have received a fair amount of reviews both within and outside of the WG. All discussions have been publicly posted in the dime mailing list. So, I do not have any concerns with the depth or breadth of the reviews. (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? There are no concerns with this document. (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. There are no concerns with this document. An IPR disclosure has been filed, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/964/, and the group has been informed about it. Content that may be subject of the IPR claim was moved into a separate document, see http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-00.txt (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 consensus in the WG behind the document. The problem is well understood and the solution is acceptable to the WG, as well as other interested SDOs. (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.) There is no opposition to this document. (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 does not contain nits. (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 has been split into normative and informative references. There normative references that are work in progress. They are as follows: [I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C., and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction", draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-11 (work in progress), November 2008. [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M., and A. Lior, "Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter", draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09 (work in progress), December 2008. It is expected that these referenced documents will be published ahead of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt. This document requires a DOWNREF for RFC 4285. (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 has an IANA considerations section that is consistent with the body. The document creates a new registry for the MIP6-Auth-Mode AVP (also defined in the document). The document provides an initial value for this AVP and follows BCP 26 with "Specification Required" as an allocation requirement. Following RFC 3588, IETF consensus is required for allocation application ids, command codes, AVP codes and values is done as part of the review and consensus process given by the work on it through the DIME working group. (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? The document contains ABNF rules specified in RFC 3588. The ABNF content has been validated. (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 specifies the interactions between the Mobile IP Home Agent and the Diameter server (AAA) in the case where the network access service and the mobility service is not in the same administrative domain. The purpose of the interactions is to bootstrap the mobile node from the MSP as part of the authentication and/or authorization process. The document defines new diameter applications to support IKEv2 and MIPv6 authentication protocol. It defines diameter messages, AVPs and command codes to carry the authentication, authorization and bootstrapping attributes. Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality The document has been sent for review to MEXT. This document is part of the solution for Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping problem defined in RFC 4640. It has received extensive reviews from DIME WG members. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
- [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-spl… Victor Fajardo