Base Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-07

State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup.
needs an OK from the WG regarding the changes requested by the IESG, as well as an answer to Ralph Droms's discuss issues.

[Ballot discuss]
The use of RFC 2119 language puzzles me.
Are statement like:
  As links connecting MNs and MAGs change under
  mobility, MLD proxies at MAGs MUST be able to dynamically add and
  remove downstream interfaces in its configuration.
Making new definitions of behavior, or are they refering to existing
norms specified elsewhere (that is, restating requirements)? In the
former case, it looks like the document is actually Standards Track.
In the latter case, I suggest inserting a reference and dropping to
lower case.

And other statements like:
  In summary, the following steps are executed on handover:
  [SNIP]
  4.  The MAG SHOULD determine whether the MN is admissible to
      multicast services, and stop here otherwise.
In this case "SHOULD" is not indicative of a step that is executed.

[Ballot discuss]
If I'm reading the document correctly, the LMAs arrange to receive
multicast streams and forward the streams to the MAGs, which then
forward the streams to subscribed MNs.

In figure 1, suppose MN1, associated with LMA1, and MN2, associated
with LMA2, are both associated with multicast stream MC.  Will MAG1
receive copies of MC from both LMA1 and LMA2?

Was a design considered in which the MAG arrange directly for the
delivery of multicast streams as required by attached MNs?

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

To: IETF-Announce 
From: The IESG
Reply-to: ietf@ietf.org
CC:
Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution (Base Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in PMIPv6 Domains) to BCP

The IESG has received a request from the Multicast Mobility WG (multimob)
to consider the following document:

- 'Base Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in PMIPv6 Domains '
    as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-01-05. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-06.txt


IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=19672&rfc_flag=0

I have reviewed this draft. I think it is a well written specification and ready to move forward. Thank you.

I have asked IETF Last Call to be initiated. In the meantime, I had a couple of small issues that you could perhaps handle by posting a new version:

> requires dedicated treatment at the network side .

s/ ././

>    In particular, MLD timers and the Robustness
>    Variable (see section 9 of [RFC3810]) MUST be chosen to be compliant
>    with the time scale of handover operations and proxy configurations
>    in the PMIPv6 domain.

I think a SHOULD would be more appropriate here.

Jari

  (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 Behcet Sarikaya.
I have personally reviewed the document and  the document is ready 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 reviews within the WG.
The document has had an expert review. The expert indicated support for the document.
I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of reviews received.

  (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 have no concerns about the reviews for this 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 no IPR disclosures filed on 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? 
There is a strong consensus behind this solution.

  (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 threatened to appeal and the document has the backing of the WG as a whole.

  (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?
No ID nit errors are present on the document and the document meets the review criteria.
The idnits tool returns 1 warning on Section 4.4 SHOULD not "NOT" should be uppercased
                        1 comment on Obsolete informational reference, the reference to RFC2236
                        in Section 3 should be removed; and no 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].

One obsolete informative reference exists. The authors are expected to fix this as part
of AD review.

  (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?

There are no actions for IANA in this document.  However, an IANA considerations section stating that does exist.

  (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 language 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
        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?
There is a strong consensus in the Multimob WG for publication as a BCP.

    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?

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