> (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?
Requesting Informational RFC as this is a requirements document.
> (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:
>
> 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.
This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
(DMM). The hierarchical structure in traditional wireless networks
has led primarily to centralized deployment models. As some wireless
networks are evolving away from the hierarchical structure, a distributed
model for mobility management can be useful to them.
> 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 was disagreement from one participant on whether some of the
requirements were stated clearly enough to make a convincing case for a
new distributed mobility management model. However, there was general
consensus in the WG that the text adequately describes the shortcomings
of current mobility management algorithms in terms of resource consumption
when used in multicast, CDN, and peer-to-peer style applications.
> 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?
This is a requirements document so there is currently no implementation.
> Personnel:
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Peter McCann is the document shepherd. Brian Haberman is the
responsible AD.
> (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.
The document shepherd reviewed the document against the latest round of
comments from the WG, and believes the document is ready to be forwarded
to the IESG.
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
> (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.
The document describes requirements for mobility management and was
adequately reviewed by the community of participants in mobility-related
IETF WGs.
> (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 shepherd has no concerns.
> (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?
All authors have confirmed that they are unaware of any IPR related
to this draft.
> (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.
> (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?
The WG as a whole is in agreement that the document is ready for
publication.
> (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 appeal has been threatened, and the disagreements noted above were
explicitly noted as non-blocking by the maker of the comments.
> (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.
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal reviews are needed.
> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
> normative or informative?
Yes.
> (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 unfinished normative references are used.
> (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 downward normative references are used.
> (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.
Publication of this document will not affect the status of any other
RFC.
> (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).
No IANA considerations are given because this is a requirements
document.
> (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.
No new IANA registries are created by this document.
> (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.
No formal notation is used in the document.