[netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6
<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 21:17 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 CE85321F8BF3; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 PwrTIvBFufUO; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80C621F8B38; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p9ILHOQ8011109; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:17:45 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:17:29 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.23) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:17:28 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.23]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:17:28 +0200
From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6
Thread-Index: AQHMjdtWnZ+HdYyWaEWQlqVVLuXtGQ==
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:17:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAC35723.123BD%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: [172.19.59.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11B7051EE1402A4686F664C25EC38E54@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2011 21:17:29.0211 (UTC) FILETIME=[577DACB0:01CC8DDB]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6
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, 18 Oct 2011 21:17:47 -0000
The Netext WG I-D: "RADIUS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", <draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6-05> has completed working group last call and is ready to be progressed for IESG review and approval. The I-D is a standards track document. The proto writeup for this I-D is below. -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 I-D. I have reviewed this version of the document and 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 been reviewed by RADIUS experts as well as a few key WG members. It has been reviewed adequately. I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews w.r.t this I-D. (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? The document has been reviewed by RADIUS experts. There is also some implementation experience of the specification. Hence additional reviews from a specific group or broader community is not essential. However a review by the Ops area directorate on the various RADIUS attributes being specified would be useful. (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 do not have any specific concerns with the document. The I-D specifies several new attributes (RADIUS) which are summarized in Sec 5.2 and the AD may want to pay attention to it. There have been no IPR disclosures related to this I-D. (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 strong WG consensus behind this document. It is essential for enabling the deployment of PMIP6 (RFC5213) protocol. The WG as a whole does understand the relevance of this I-D and agrees with it. (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 I-D throigh the tool and it has passed. (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 ones. All normative references are RFCs. (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 I-D does include an IANA considerations section which lists the set of attributes that need IANA action. The document does not recommend any new registry to be created. New RADIUS attributes (PMIP6 specific) are specified by this I-D and IANA assignments handled accordingly. (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? I-D does not contain any XML code, BNF rules or MIB definitions. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Technical summary: This document defines new attributes to facilitate Proxy Mobile IPv6 operations using the RADIUS infrastructure. The protocol specified here uses RADIUS based interfaces of the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor with the AAA server for authentication, authorization and policy functions. The RADIUS interactions between the mobile access gateway and the RADIUS-based AAA server take place when the Mobile Node attaches to the network, authenticates and authorizes within a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. Furthermore, this document defines the RADIUS-based interface between the local mobility anchor and the AAA RADIUS server for authorizing received Proxy Binding Update messages for the mobile node's mobility session. Additionally, this document specifies the baseline for the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor generated accounting. Working group summary: The document has been reviewed by several RADIUS protocol experts as well as key members within the working group. It has undergone two working group last calls and has been revised based on feedback from reviewers as well as implementation experience. There is strong WG consensus behind this document. Document quality: There is at least one known implementation of the protocol. Multiple vendors have indicated plans to implement this specification. All the key people who have reviewed this I-D are acknowledged in the document.
- [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-neteā¦ Basavaraj.Patil