[netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07
<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Tue, 25 October 2011 16:50 UTC
Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6815021F8C57; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.716
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mjUeqiHiBn09; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C93321F8C55; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9PGoMAT030473; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:50:32 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:50:25 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-008.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.24) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:50:25 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-008.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.24]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:50:25 +0200
From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07
Thread-Index: AQHMkzYw+OEFKSXIvkGZVc/Jij5Rug==
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:50:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CACC5301.12AF8%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505
x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.28]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <AFD7463AF55EAD498CCA53E9450A4CAA@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2011 16:50:25.0868 (UTC) FILETIME=[31B9D0C0:01CC9336]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org, netext@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:50:34 -0000
Hello, The Netext WG I-D: "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6", <draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07> has completed working group last call and is ready to be advanced to the IESG for review and approval for publication. Intended status of the I-D: Standards track Please consider this as a request for progressing this WG I-D towards publication following IESG reviews and IETF LC. -Basavaraj (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? I (Basavaraj Patil) am the document shepherd for this document. I have reviewed this version of the I-Dand believe that it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG 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 had adequate review by key WG members. It has not had any review by people outside the scope of the WG. I do not have concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews received. (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? I do not have any concerns regarding the need for further review by any specific group of experts. (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. I have no concerns with the content or quality of the document. (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 sufficient WG consensus behind this document. The active constituents of the Netext WG are in support of this document while the rest are simply silent. (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? Yes, I have run the document through the ID-Nits tools and apart from a few warnings, there are no concerns. (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 references into normative and informative sections. All references are published RFCs and hence there is no concern about dependency on the referenced documents. (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? Yes. The IANA section contains clear instructions for allocation of a new mobility header type. The registryto be used is also provided in the IANA section of the I-D. (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 is no XML code or MIB definitions contained in the I-D. (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 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling. PMIPv6 requires all communications to go through the local mobility anchor. As this can be suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows mobile nodes attached to the same or different mobile access gateways to route traffic by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways. This document proposes initiation, utilization and termination mechanisms for localized routing between mobile access gateways within a proxy mobile IPv6 domain. It defines two new signaling messages, Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) and Local Routing Acknowledgment (LRA), that are used to realize this mechanism. Working Group Summary This document has been presented and discussed at length in the working group. It includes multiple contributors who are listed in the Authors section. There is sufficient consensus behind the document. The authors could not agree on the tunnelling mechanism to be used between the MAGs. This has however been resolved based on the solution that is presented in RFC5949 (Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6). Document Quality There are no known implementation of the protocol at the present time. However there is strong interest in utilizing the optimization feature in the context of network based mobility solutions. The document quality is good and provides reasonable clarity for an implementer who understands PMIP6 (RFC5213).
- [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft… Basavaraj.Patil