[Mip4] Request for Publication: draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-haaro-05

[Pete McCann <[e-mail]>]

Dear iesg-secretary (BCC'd):

This is a request for the IESG to consider publication of
draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-haaro-05 as an Experimental RFC.
Answers to the questionnaire are below.

>  (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 Pete McCann.  Yes, I have reviewed
this version of 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?

Yes, and no.

>  (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.

The document contains a novel compression scheme for realm names
that perhaps could have instead borrowed from existing practice in the
DNS protocol.  However, the authors claim greater efficiency.
No IPR claims were filed against this draft.

>  (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?

Consensus is solid.

>  (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?

Nits checker reveals 4 lines that are slightly too long, two slightly outdated
references.  These can be fixed as part of the RFC editor process.

>  (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 contains a split references section.  None of the normative
references are downward.  One informative reference is to a draft 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?

The document has a properly labeled IANA considerations section
which requests several actions from IANA, including new Mobile IP
message types, reply codes, and extension codes.  These are from
existing number spaces with well defined allocation policies.  Three
new number spaces are allocated and the assignment policies are
currently unspecified; I would suggest Expert Review with specification
required.

>  (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?

No such formal languages are used in the document.

>  (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 a Home Agent assisted Route Optimization
   functionality to IPv4 Network Mobility Protocol.  The function is
   designed to facilitate optimal routing in cases where all nodes are
   connected to a single Home Agent, thus the use case is Route
   Optimization within single organization or similar entity.  The
   functionality adds the possibility to discover eligible peer nodes
   based on information received from Home Agent, Network Prefixes they
   represent, and how to establish a direct tunnel between such nodes.

>     Working Group Summary

The draft has strong consensus within the working group.

>     Document Quality

Document quality is good.