[Mip4] Request to Publish draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-04
Pete McCann <mccap@petoni.org> Thu, 24 February 2011 15:43 UTC
Return-Path: <mccap@petoni.org>
X-Original-To: mip4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mip4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D573A6A25; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:43:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 7bwCswnrDB8N; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:43:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E61C3A6A1C; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwb39 with SMTP id 39so684999wwb.13 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:44:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.152.149 with SMTP id g21mr960821wbw.20.1298562274457; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:44:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.24.137 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:44:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [64.53.131.166]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:44:34 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=AfK1L-o1J8KG4=H9EDkEH1b4a-YRAhby-a2XB@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pete McCann <mccap@petoni.org>
To: mip4@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [Mip4] Request to Publish draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-04
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4>
List-Post: <mailto:mip4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:43:50 -0000
Dear iesg-secretary (BCC'd): This is a request for the IESG to consider publication of draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-04 as a Proposed Standard. 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. No concerns. No IPR disclosure related to this document has been filed. (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? One nit: the reference to RFC3344 should be replaced with RFC5944. (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 only normative references, contained in a properly labeled "Normative References" section. No downward refs are present. (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 IANA section requests allocation of one Mobile IP Extension Type needed by the document. Missing is a request to allocate the Subtype registry for this type. (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 exist. (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 The GRE specification contains a Key field, which MAY contain a value that is used to identify a particular GRE data stream. This specification defines a new Mobile IP extension that is used to exchange the value to be used in the GRE Key field when GRE tunneling is used. Working Group Summary Considerable time was spent discussing whether the presence of a GRE key extension inserted by an FA can override the setting of the 'G' bit by the MN. We decided that it can, but only when using FA-located tunneling. Document Quality The protocol has been implemented in vendor-specific 3GPP2 extensions previously. The idea is well understood and the present document is of high quality.