Re: Experimental RFC to be: draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-multihome-fixed-network-03.txt

[The IESG <[e-mail]>]

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Multi-homing for small 
scale fixed network Using Mobile IP and NEMO' 
<draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-multihome-fixed-network-03.txt> as an 
Experimental RFC. 

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the 
datatracker 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11618&rfc_flag=0) 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-multihome-fixed-network-03.txt


The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary
 
  This document specifies the use of techniques either
  developed or under development in the MONAMI6 and NEMO
  working groups for solving a multihoming problem in
  a fixed network.
 
Working Group Summary
 
  This is an independent submission via the RFC Editor.
 
Protocol Quality
 
  Jari Arkko has reviwed the specification for conflicts
  with IETF work, as specified in RFC 3932. The NEMO,
  MONAMI6, SHIM6, and MIP6 chairs were contacted during
  this review.

Note to RFC Editor
 
   The official response is

     The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in
     the MONAMI6, NEMO, MIP6, and SHIM6 working groups, but
     this does not prevent publishing.

   In addition we would like the RFC Editor and the authors
   to be careful in how they refer to ongoing work, to use
   the latest reference and to correctly characterize the
   state of the work. Specifically, draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa
   reference should point to ongoing work in MONAMI6 WG,
   i.e., draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa, which is a later development
   of the same specification. The normative/informative reference
   status should be reviewed along with the text
   in the body of the document. The text should portray this
   work as an example of ongoing work unless the authors are
   willing to hold their work up for a normative reference.
   Similarly, draft-wakikawa-mip6-nemo-haha-01.txt has been 
   discussed in the NEMO WG but has not yet been adopted, so it
   too should be characterized as an example of ongoing work.

IESG Note

  Please use the standard IESG note 2:

      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
      is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
      congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
      protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
      its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise caution
      in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.  See
      RFC 3932 for more information.

IANA Note

  There are no IANA considerations.


_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce