[Mip4] Request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4-06.txt to Experimental RFC

["McCann Peter-A001034" <[e-mail]>]

This is a request to advance draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4-06.txt,
"Mobile IPv4 Fast Handovers", to Experimental 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 went through last call back in September of 2005 and
has been discussed actively.  We feel the document has obtained
sufficient review, and I have no concerns about the depth or breadth
of 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.

>    (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 concerns.  All issues have been addressed.

>    (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 solid WG consensus behind 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?

The document has been checked for nits.  No nits found by the automated
checker and no nits found by proofreading.  The draft does not have any
serious dependencies on other working groups so the review done by MIP4
probably suffices.

>    (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].

Yes, references are split.  All normative references are published RFCs.
As this draft is intended for Experimental status, there are no downward
references.

>    (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 a detailed IANA section.  The document does not
create any new registries.  The requested allocations are described with
appropriate references to the number spaces.

>    (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?

There are no formal language descriptions in the document.

>    (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

The document describes a new protocol designed to reduce the
latency and packet loss experienced during handover.  It does
so by introducing new messages to be used among the Mobile Node (MN),
Previous Access Router (PAR) and New Access Router (NAR).  The
messages allow the MN to establish a binding at the PAR such that
packets are forwarded to/from the NAR immediately after a handover.
This avoids the long round-trip time to the home network that would
be incurred by a standard Mobile IPv4 messsage flow.

>           Working Group Summary

The document underwent working group last call in September 2005,
and has been actively discussed and edited since then.

>           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: [e-mail]
    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/