Document Shepherd Write Up draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-14.txt Geoff Huston 17 September 2010 As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated September 17, 2008. (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? Geoff Huston, co-chair of the Shim6 Working Group, is the document shepherd for this document. I have personally reviewed this version of the document and I believe that is is ready for IESG review preceding publication as an Informational RFC (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? Yes, the document was reviewed in detail by the WG in response to the WG last call in December 2009, and a number of document revisions were proposed as an outcome of this review. A followup WG last Call in June 2010 elicited confirmation from the WG that this document is ready for the IESG. There have been no negative comments received on this document, and no visible dissent with the document. (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 beleive that this document has been carefully crafted and thoroughly edited. I would not recommend that this document requires any particular additional review outsode of the conventional IESG review process. (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. The Document Shepherd has no such concerns 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? The is a long standing working group with a core of some 10 - 15 active particpants. It is my understanding that the WG participants understand and agree with this 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.) 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 document through the ID nits checker, and I am happy that the document meets the ID nits criteria. There are no MIB or URL definitions. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? no If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? n/a Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? no If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. n/a . (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? yes 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? n/a - there are no IANA registries defined in this 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? n/a (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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Technical Summary This document defines socket API extensions by which upper layer protocols may be informed about and control the way in which a multihoming shim sub-layer in the IP layer (SHIM6) manages the dynamic choice of locators. Initially these socket API extensions apply to SHIM6 and HIP, but the API is intentionally defined in a generic fashion. Working Group Summary This document is a product of the SHIM6 WG. It received reviews by the SHIM6 WG participants through two Working Group Last Calls, and reflects the rough consensus of the WG that the document is appropriate for publication as an Informational RFC. Document Quality The SHIM6 WG and the responsible area director have deemed the document to be of good quality. Personnel The Working Group chairs are Geoff Huston and Kurtis Lindqvist. The responsible area director is Jari Arkko.