Shepherd writeup

 PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-06.txt

  (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 (
         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? 


  (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. 


  (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.) 


  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and 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? 

  (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.