[Mip6] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-04.txt

Hello,

The following I-D has completed WG LC and is ready to be progressed
through the IESG.

Title: Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6 
I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-04.txt

Status: Informational

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
   they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
   for publication? 

The chairs have reviewed the I-D and suggested changes/corrections to
the authors which have been incorporated in the above revision of the
I-D. There has been a good deal of discussion as a result of the WG LC
and prior to it as well on the WG mailing list. The I-D is
sufficiently baked for IESG consideration and publication.

2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
   key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
   breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The I-D has been reviewed sufficiently by key WG members. Several
people from other WGs such as v6ops have reviewed the I-D as well. We
(Chairs) are satisfied with the degree of review in terms of depth and
breadth. 

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
   particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
   complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? 

There have been some concerns regarding security especially the replay
protection. However there has been a good deal of discussion on this
topic and has been adequately dealt with in the I-D. A broader review
of this I-D is not essential at this time. Operational aspects as well
as deployment in scenarios that use AAA have been also thought out.  

4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
   you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
   perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
   or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
   time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
   indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No specific concerns/issues with any part of this I-D. 

5) 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 a fairly strong consensus to progress this I-D on an
Informational track. Most people in the WG understand the reason for
this I-D. It should also be noted that this I-D is a requirement for
3GPP2s 835 Revision D specification. 

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

There has been an appeal on progressing this I-D on standards
track. The appeal was made to the ADs prior to IETF61 and was resolved
at the WG meeting. The conclusion was to progress this I-D on an
Informational track.

7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
   ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.

8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
   and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
   also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
   (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
   references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
   also ready for publication as RFCs.)

The I-D has only normative references. There is a normative reference
to I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option. However that I-D is also
being put before the IESG at the same time, and both should be
progressed in parallel.  

9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
   announcement includes a writeup section with the following
   sections:

   - Technical Summary
   - Working Group Summary
   - Protocol Quality

This is an Informational track I-D.

-Chairs

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6