[Mip4] Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt to Informational RFC
"McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann@motorola.com> Wed, 06 June 2007 20:19 UTC
Return-path: <mip4-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hw1yx-0005Ca-VH; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:19:51 -0400
Received: from mip4 by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hw1yx-0005An-8N for mip4-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:19:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hw1yw-0005Ab-UM; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:19:50 -0400
Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com ([216.82.253.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hw1yw-00067I-Dq; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:19:50 -0400
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: pete.mccann@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1181161186!1000913!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.102]
Received: (qmail 21657 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2007 20:19:47 -0000
Received: from motgate4.mot.com (HELO motgate4.mot.com) (144.189.100.102) by server-6.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 6 Jun 2007 20:19:47 -0000
Received: from az33exr04.mot.com (az33exr04.mot.com [10.64.251.234]) by motgate4.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l56KJk1k001247; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 13:19:46 -0700 (MST)
Received: from az10vts02.mot.com (az10vts02.mot.com [10.64.251.243]) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id l56KJjIs009128; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:19:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from de01exm67.ds.mot.com (de01exm67.am.mot.com [10.176.8.18]) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l56KJixu009107; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:19:45 -0500 (CDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:19:43 -0400
Message-ID: <BE4B07D4197BF34EB3B753DD34EBCD13019A8E15@de01exm67.ds.mot.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt to Informational RFC
thread-index: AceoeASzlZiA0VfhSWSTVjTpUkzRPw==
From: McCann Peter-A001034 <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Vontu: Pass
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2e8fc473f5174be667965460bd5288ba
Cc: mip4@ietf.org, mip4-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Mip4] Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mip4-bounces@ietf.org
This is a request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt to Informational RFC. The draft has completed last call and all outstanding issues have been addressed. > (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? Pete McCann is the document shepherd. Yes, I have personally reviewed the document and 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? The document has been adequately reviewed both by the mip4 working group and members of the radext working group. I have no concern about the reviews. > (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 concerns. > (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. No issues. > (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 unanimous consensus to advance the document. I believe that the WG as a whole understands the requirements and is comfortable with 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 appeals have been threatened. > (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? Only nits found are 3 unused references in the Informative References section. These documents may provide useful context for the work even though they aren't referenced in the text. I would be ok with removing them if the RFC Editor wishes. > (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 has split its references into Normative and Informative. The intended status of the document is Informational so there are no downward references. However, there is one Normative reference [zorn-radius-keywrap] which is still only an internet-draft. None of the Informative references are actually used in the text. > (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 suggested a > reasonable name for the new registry? See > [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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 contains no parameter assignments. The IANA considerations section notes this. > (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 notation is used. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary This document defines a set of goals and a set of non-goals for RADIUS extensions to handle Mobile IPv4 key distribution. Among the goals are the definition of new attributes, backwards compatibility, and turning FAs and HAs into RADIUS clients. Among the non-goals are any RADIUS extensions to support security, transport reliability, or the size of the available message set. Together, the goals and non-goals serve to define and limit the scope of the Mobile IPv4 RADIUS work that will take place when this document is approved. > Working Group Summary The document completed last call in the mip4 working group in May, 2007. It was also reviewed by selected members of the RADEXT working group. > Personnel > Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the > Responsible Area Director? Pete McCann is the document shepherd. Jari Arkko is the responsible AD. -Pete -- Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4 Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/
- Re: [Mip4] Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-rad… Jari Arkko
- [Mip4] Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-radius-… McCann Peter-A001034