[Dime] Publication request for Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
<lionel.morand@orange.com> Tue, 13 December 2011 12:53 UTC
Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DBB21F8AC9; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:53:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R0SNE3Xl4iaU; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6018721F8A97; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4AD14AB0013; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:54:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFCAAB000E; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:54:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:53:08 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CCB996.29955947"
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:52:58 +0100
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F5770104EE0B@ftrdmel1>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Publication request for Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
Thread-Index: Acy5liOg9AtSfE+XRsOZbY7zKwkrUw==
From: lionel.morand@orange.com
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2011 12:53:08.0328 (UTC) FILETIME=[29BB5E80:01CCB996]
Cc: dime@ietf.org, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Publication request for Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:53:15 -0000
Dear Secretary, This is a request for publication of the Internet-Draft "draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-06" as a standards track RFC. Please find below the document shepherd proto write-up. Best Regards. Lionel ============================================== PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-06.txt ============================================== http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-06 (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? -- Lionel Morand (lionel.morand@orange.com) is the Document Shepherd, Dime co-chair. He has done a review on the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded to 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 discussed in the DIME WG for more than two years, with different reviews of the updated version of the draft. The lastest version is the result of the consensus reached after discussion. However, only one review was done during the WGLC. The shepherd has reviewed the document himself and has no issue with it. Nor the shepherd has issues with the reviews done by others. (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. (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. (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 Dime WG consensus behind the 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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist 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? -- The shepherd has checked the document with the idnits tool and found no critical issues.. The document does not need MIB doctor review. The document does not contain any media and URI types. (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]. -- References are split accordingly. There is no normative reference to documents with unclear status or are in progress. (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 [RFC5226]. 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? -- This document only defines new value in the Mobility Capability registry (created by the RFC 5447) for use with the MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP and requests IANA for value assignment in the existing registry. (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? -- N/A (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 AAA support for the authorization and discovery of Proxy Mobile IPv6 mobility entities (i.e. Local Mobility Anchors and Mobile Access Gateways) during localized routing. For this purpose, the document defines a new value for the MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP originally defined in the RFC 5447 to indicate that Direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to the different MAG without involving any LMA is supported. Working Group Summary --- The document was discussed for more than two years in the WG and the document captures the results of the collaborative WG work. Document Quality --- The document is complete, straightforward, simple and well-written.
- [Dime] Publication request for Diameter Support f… lionel.morand