(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
Proposed Standard
(2) 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:
This document specifies protocol enhancements for allowing the local
mobility anchor in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to asynchronously
notify the mobile access gateway about changes related to a mobility
session. These update notification messages are exchanged using a
new Mobility Header message type specifically designed for this
purpose.
Working Group Summary:
The extension to Proxy Mobile IPv6 was viewed as essential to the
protocol and hence was adopted by the working group and progressed
with no issues.
Document Quality:
The document has been reviewed by multiple experts within the working
group and has been updated based on the feedback received. The quality
of the document itself is good and ready for IESG review. All
reviewers have been acknowledged in the I-D. The extension is relevant
and has been requested by 3GPP as an enhancement to the
protocol. Multiple vendors are likely to implement this extension to
Proxy Mobile IPv6.
Are there existing
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Brian Haberman
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
I have reviewed the I-D multiple times during the course of the work
being progressed in the working group. The authors have been receptive
to the suggestions and have updated the draft accordingly. At this
time I am satisfied with the quality of the I-D and believe that it is
ready for IESG review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The I-D has been reviewed sufficiently.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No. The I-D proposes an extension to the base protocol (Proxy Mobile
IPv6) and hence does not need any additional review from experts in
other areas.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has 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.
The WG does not have any concerns with this I-D. No major issues or
concerns have been raised that would need to be flagged here.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Each author has confirmed that they are in line with the provisions of
BCP 78, 79.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed w.r.t this I-D.
(9) 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 broad WG consensus on the need for this extension to Proxy
Mobile IPv6. I believe most of the active WG participants understand
the need for this extension and are supportive of it.
(10) 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 publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.
I have checked the I-D for nits with the following result:
"
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment
(--).
"
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The I-D does not specify any MIB, media type or URI types.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes. The I-D splits the references into normative and informative
sections.
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
No normative references exist which are pending advancement.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
Status of existing Proxy Mobile IPv6 RFCs will not be affected. This
is an extension to the base protocol and hence there is no impact
caused to the base protocol itself.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).
The IANA considerations section is complete and includes all the
information that would be required by IANA.
A new registry is required. And the details for this are specified in
the IANA considerations section.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
A new IANA registry called : "Update Notification Reasons Registry" is
required. Experts who can assist IANA for these registries include the
current working group chairs (Basavaraj Patil/Rajeev Koodli) as well
as other active participants in this WG such as: Charles Perkins, Kent
Leung, Pete McCann.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
Not required for this I-D.