[netlmm] Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6

["Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6

# (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?

Document Shepherd is Jonne Soininen (WG co-Chair for NETLMM). I have
personally 
processed and reviewed the document and I do believe the document is ready
to be
forwarded 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 extensive review by the WG. An extential WGLC was
conducted.


# (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?

As the document shepherd, I have no concerns on the extensivity of the
review of the document.


# (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 on the document.

There have been multiple IPR disclosures on the document - both as a WG
version and as individual-draft. This area is extremely thoroughly
researched, and almost everything that relates to mobile, wireless network
mobility has been protected by IPR. Thus, it is practically impossible
to find a square inch of area in these technologies that would not
be patented somewhere.

IPR disclosures:

Two disclosures to the WG document version:
2008-01-04    911    Nokia Siemens Networks Oy's Statement about IPR related
to draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-08 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/911/)
2007-08-28      881       Nortel Networks Limited's Statement about IPR
claimed in draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-01.txt
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/881/)

disclosures on previous versions of the document:
2007-04-10      834       QUALCOMM Incorporated's statement about IPR
claimed in draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02.txt
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/834/)
2007-03-15      822       Samsung Electronics's statement about IPR claimed
in draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02.txt
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/822/)
2007-02-28      807       Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in
draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6  (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/807/)
2006-11-06      756       Nokia Corporation's statement about IPR claimed in
draft-sgundave-mipv6-proxymipv6-00.txt
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/756/)

# (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 a strong consensus behind the document.


# (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.)

Nobody has threatned to appeal and the document is product of the whole WG
effort.

However, the WG went through an analysis of using a new protocol versus
building
on Mobile IPv6 to meet the goals of NETLMM.  There were extensive
debates about the merits of each solution and the consensus eventually
was to go with a Proxy Mobile IPv6 based approach.  At the time (around
Jan 2007), there were some strong objections to the decision and some
talk of a potential appeal.  However, no such discussion has happened
recently and the current protocol document is a product of the WG as a
whole.


# (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document
# satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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 run the nits script on the draft and it gave no warnings or errors


# (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].

There is a split to normative and informative references.
There are no normative documents that would be in a dubious state.


# (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 [RFC2434]. 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, IANA considerations section does exist and seems to be in line with the
rest of the document.


# (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?

No formal languange segments exist.


# (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 enables IP mobility for a host
   without requiring its participation in any mobility related
   signaling.  Instead, the Network is responsible for managing IP mobility
on
   behalf of the host.

Working Group Summary
   There is a consensus in Netlmm WG that this specification is ready to be
   published as a proposed standard.

Document Quality
  The document has gone through various reviews and a successful WGLC.

Personel
   Responsible AD is Jari Arkko and the document shepherd is Jonne Soininen.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]




_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm