[netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip
Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Wed, 24 July 2013 22:21 UTC
Return-Path: <bpatil1@gmail.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 83A6E11E8141; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 5BaTiKlQ0f5Q; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DCE11E8137; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ta17so14223983obb.22 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZZdCz+MfMqYEY3EkKbks+Lkc0aXfZOOHLpHlokq375s=; b=MuYi773U3gIrC8MjiLiMOuwU/fkGHQvxpgCooHYP9aal2wfapit1HK9IW9HPTLTgZI mJFvoNYxSPKnGZThTKTO+WvEuMOdGz0rXbxz+ILIsYD4DGRzNUSTF5Q58OVpRUxDtAl/ BgmbBNhbLHqvGklLzKf0Fr9NZJijS/PRFEYHGJLFH6oA1UFo4ADX8N1zApYC/5ULEkWR TEy1LyEvcmZy6StuqZ8yIDS6noXmMATYxt8J5v6Wz8xhR/XO/ZsAKQvObGJ0W3mONK81 PWHLOSANNpzXAgDFO08yVSDYK2o/mg1X8LLcENDUmFglamPAuL1+i4RqdFllA4B4IZIH 25ag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.131.171 with SMTP id on11mr39035138oeb.71.1374704452424; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.111.138 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:20:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T0R08Zjrx0GNfghGf6VHXghWY-Qbr8+uDMspsMrYOVPtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b471da48eda1e04e2495259"
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:21:01 -0000
Hello, The Netext working group has completed the working group last call for I-D: Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 <draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-09>. The I-D is now ready for IESG review and approval. Below is the completed proto writeup. -Chairs (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. Type of RFC is indicated in the title page header. (2) 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 defines extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for allowing a mobile router in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to obtain delegated IP prefixes for its attached mobile networks. The mobility entities in the network will provide network-based mobility management support for those delegated IP prefixes just as how IP mobility support is provided for the mobile node's home address. Even as the mobile router performs a handoff and changes its network point of attachment, mobility support is ensured for all the delegated IP prefixes and for all the IP nodes in the mobile network that use IP address configuration from those delegated IP prefixes. Working Group Summary: The working group has discussed this I-D at length. Comments by Alexandru Petrescu (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/current/msg02815.html) claimed that the proposal was similar to work being done in other working groups. However the working group members believe that this extension is essential for Proxy Mobile IPv6 and hence needs to be published on its own. Document Quality: The document has been reviewed extensively and revised as a result of these reviews. The quality of the document at this time is good and ready for IESG review. No known implementations of this extension to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol exist. However a few vendors have expressed plans to implement it. All reviewers have been appropriately acknowledged in the I-D. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil Responsible AD: Brian Haberman (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed this I-D multiple times (different versions) and have worked with the authors in updating and improving it. This version of the document is ready for IESG review and publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The I-D proposes a solution for prefix delegation by a mobile router. There is no necessity of a broader review from the perspective of security, operational complexity, DHCP, DNS or internationalization. This specification inherits security and operational aspects from the base protocol (RFC5213). (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. As document shepherd, I do not not have any concerns with this document. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors have confirmed that they are in full conformance of BCP 78 and 79. An IPR disclosure has been provided to the WG. See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2121/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes. IPR disclosure has been filed. The WG was notified about this IPR disclosure and a last call conducted. The WG did not have any comments or concerns expressed regarding the IPR disclosure. (9) 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 strong WG consensus for publishing this I-D as a proposed standard. Consensus ia across the broader WG. (10) 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 publicly available.) There has not been any extreme discontent by anyone w.r.t this I-D. There has been some opposition to this I-D, but this has been limited to one WG member only and does not represent the broader WG consensus. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. I-D nits summary: " Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. " (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document does not specify a MIB, media types of URI types and hence does not require a review from experts in those areas. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. All references in this I-D are published RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. There are no downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Publication of this document will not change the status of existing RFCs including the Proxy Mobile IPv6 base protocol (RFC5213). (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section specifies two actions for IANA. As shepherd I have reviewed the IANA considerations section and believe that all relevant information has been included for IANA to act on. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries are required as a result of this I-D. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The I-D does not include any XML code, BNF rules or MIB definitions. -- Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-… Alexandru Petrescu
- [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Basavaraj Patil