==============================================
PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-06.txt
==============================================
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-06
(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?
--
Lionel Morand (lionel.morand@orange.com)
is the Document Shepherd, Dime co-chair. He has done a review
on the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded to
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 discussed in the DIME WG for more than two
years, with different reviews of the updated version of the draft.
The lastest version is the result of the consensus reached
after discussion. However, only one review was done during the WGLC.
The shepherd has reviewed the document himself and has no
issue with it. Nor the shepherd has issues with the reviews
done by others.
(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?
--
No.
(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.
--
No.
(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 Dime WG 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.)
--
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?
--
The shepherd has checked the document with the idnits tool and
found no critical issues..
The document does not need MIB doctor review.
The document does not contain any media and URI types.
(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].
--
References are split accordingly. There is no normative reference
to documents with unclear status or are in progress.
(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?
--
This document only defines new value in the Mobility Capability
registry (created by the RFC 5447) for use with the
MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP and requests IANA for value
assignment in the existing 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?
--
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
--
This document describes AAA support for the authorization and
discovery of Proxy Mobile IPv6 mobility entities (i.e. Local Mobility
Anchors and Mobile Access Gateways) during localized routing.
For this purpose, the document defines a new value for the
MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP originally defined in the RFC 5447 to indicate
that Direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to the different
MAG without involving any LMA is supported.
Working Group Summary
---
The document was discussed for more than two years in the WG and
the document captures the results of the collaborative WG work.
Document Quality
---
The document is complete, straightforward, simple and well-written.