[Mip4] Publication Request: draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-06.txt
Henrik Levkowetz <henrik.levkowetz@ericsson.com> Wed, 13 February 2008 16:09 UTC
Return-Path: <mip4-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-mip4-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mip4-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE9228C87F; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:09:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.972
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.535, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 1mD4LqZXGcaS; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA7C3A6FA2; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:09:41 -0800 (PST)
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 67A7B3A6F9B; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:09:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 XejVPP2G8jHr; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:09:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF7428C8AD; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:09:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 23715214FE; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:10:36 +0100 (CET)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-a91fcbb000000b15-81-47b3167bee96
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E9C4B2120F; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:10:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:10:35 +0100
Received: from [147.214.22.209] ([147.214.22.209]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:10:35 +0100
Message-ID: <47B3167B.7020706@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:10:35 +0100
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik.levkowetz@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2008 16:10:35.0410 (UTC) FILETIME=[F73C5F20:01C86E5A]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: mip4-chairs@tools.ietf.org, int-ads@tools.ietf.org, MIP4 Mailing list <mip4@ietf.org>
Subject: [Mip4] Publication Request: draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-06.txt
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mip4-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mip4-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, This is a request to the IESG to consider draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-06.txt for publication as an RFC. I enclose the Document Shepherd Questionnaire, below. Regards, Henrik ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (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? * Henrik Levkowetz, MIP4 co-chair * Reviewed, yes * Ready, yes. RFC-editor: please change "IPv6 packetm" to "IPv6 packet," in para. 10 of Section 4.3.2. (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 * 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 disclosures (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? * The WG last call was generally positive, but raised some issues. These have all been handled in version -06. (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 threat of appeal or other discontent. (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? * Idnits check passed, plus manual verification as needed, including: - Network byte order - IANA considerations - Author Address - Meaningful Abstract - Meaningful Security Considerations - Not outdateable text - Protocol behaviour characteristics (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]. * Reference split OK (this is covered by 1.g) * No references to documents not ready for advancements * No downward refs (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 [RFC2434]. 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? * IANA considerations verified (this is covered by 1.g) * All other items of 1.i verified (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? * Not applicable (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 specification provides extensions to the Mobile IPv4 protocol, which allow a dual stack node to use both IPv4 and IPv6 home addresses, while moving between IPv4 and dual stack network attachment points." Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? * Nothing to note. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? * The protocol has been implemented by Flarion, and an internal implementation has also been made at IPunplugged. The shepherd does not have further knowledge of implementation plans (although he'd guess that Cisco has already implemented this, and if not, will shortly do so). -- Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org Web interface: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4 Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/
- [Mip4] Publication Request: draft-ietf-mip4-dsmip… Henrik Levkowetz