[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.