[netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08
<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Thu, 20 October 2011 16:00 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 0961321F8CC1; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.739
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.140, 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 m6C74wwRfA-H; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065FA21F8CC2; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9KG0Q5W027738; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:00:27 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:00:21 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.56) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:00:20 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.56]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:00:20 +0200
From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: Request to progress Netext WG I-D draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08
Thread-Index: AQHMj0Fetsi6DPDm4ke8DOfoItAunA==
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:00:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CAC5AFC3.12575%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: [172.19.59.136]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C965BA14BE465E4F862EAE6CE5BB7128@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2011 16:00:21.0854 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F20E7E0:01CC8F41]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:00:30 -0000
Hello, The Netext working group I-D: "Bulk Re-registration Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", <draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08> has completed working group last call and is ready to be progressed. Please consider this as a request for review and approval for publication this I-D by the IESG. The I-D is to be progressed on standards track. -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) will be the document shepherd for this I-D. I have reviewed the I-D and believe 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 sufficiently by key WG members. I have no concerns regarding 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? I have no concerns with the current set of reviews and do not believe any further broader reviews are needed. Reviews by the various directorates during the IETF last call process will anyway help. The I-D does not have any XML code or internationalization aspects and hence does not need reviews from experts in that quarter. (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. There are no concerns or issues with this 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. It has been discussed within the working group for over 2 years now. The norm has been that a few WG members are active while most are passive. The active WG members understand and agree with this I-D. (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. There have been no threats of appeals or otherwise w.r.t this I-D. (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 through the ID nits tool and no issues exist. (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, the document has split the references into normative and informative ones. All references are to published RFCs. There are no pending dependencies. (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? The document contains an IANA considerations section with clear instructions of the actions required by IANA. The specification does not require a new registry but uses the existing registry and adds new attributes to that registry. (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? The document does not contain any XML code or BNF rules. It does not contain any MIB definitions either. (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 For extending the lifetime of a mobility session, the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification requires the mobile access gateway to send a Proxy Binding Update message to the local mobility agent on a per-session basis. In the absence of signaling semantics for performing operations with group specific scope, it results in significant amount of signaling traffic on a periodic basis between a given mobile access gateway and a local mobility anchor. This document defines an optimization to the binding update and revocation operations in Proxy Mobile IPv6 for performing operations with group specific scope using of a group identifier. Working Group Summary There is WG consensus regarding this proposal. The I-D has been presented and discussed at several WG meetings. It has also been sufficiently reviewed and the document quality improved over multiple revisions. Document Quality There are no known implementations of this protocol at the present time. WG members who helped with the reviews have been acknowledged in the I-D. The document quality is good and can serve as the basis for an implementation. Clear guidelines for processing by the Mobile Access Gateway and the Local Mobility Agent have been specified.
- [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D draft-… Basavaraj.Patil