Mobile IPv4 Extension for Configuration Options Exchange
draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from mip4-chairs@ietf.org,draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext@ietf.org,dhc-chairs@ietf.org to dhc-chairs@ietf.org |
2008-01-25
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-01-25
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-01-25
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-01-25
|
04 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
2008-01-25
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2008-01-24
|
04 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::External Party by Jari Arkko |
2008-01-24
|
04 | Jari Arkko | According the WG chair Henrik Levkowetz, this document should go back to the WG for re-evaluation of the issue wrt DHCP or other means for … According the WG chair Henrik Levkowetz, this document should go back to the WG for re-evaluation of the issue wrt DHCP or other means for communicating these configurations. |
2007-12-04
|
04 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Jari Arkko |
2007-12-04
|
04 | Jari Arkko | Waiting for WG discussion on MIP4 option vs. DHCPINFORM discussion. |
2007-11-15
|
04 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation::External Party by Jari Arkko |
2007-07-24
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-04.txt |
2007-06-11
|
04 | Jari Arkko | Verified that a note about 2nd WGLC had been sent to MIP4, but I could not find anything from the DHC list. Sent a reminder … Verified that a note about 2nd WGLC had been sent to MIP4, but I could not find anything from the DHC list. Sent a reminder to the chairs. |
2007-05-29
|
04 | Jari Arkko | Will run a second WGLC in DHC. |
2007-05-18
|
04 | Jari Arkko | Jabbered Henrik, and he agrees that 2nd WGLC is needed, after I explained that this is the procedure that we follow. In this case it … Jabbered Henrik, and he agrees that 2nd WGLC is needed, after I explained that this is the procedure that we follow. In this case it may be even more important, given that this is not a simple option but a new transport. |
2007-05-14
|
04 | Jari Arkko | AD review reveals no issues other than the need for DHCP review. |
2007-05-14
|
04 | Jari Arkko | Needs review from DHC WG or at least some experts before proceeding to IETF LC. |
2007-05-14
|
04 | Jari Arkko | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested by Jari Arkko |
2007-05-14
|
04 | Jari Arkko | Process message sent to DHC and MIP4 chairs: Draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext specifies a facility for a mobile node to learn about configuration information in the home network. … Process message sent to DHC and MIP4 chairs: Draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext specifies a facility for a mobile node to learn about configuration information in the home network. What it does is in fact carry DHCP options from the home network. Pete, who is the document shepherd, feels that this needs review from DHC WG and I fully agree (and it would have been better if I had caught this earlier, but I didn't -- sorry). I would like to have either 2nd WGLC that extends to the DHC WG as well, or alternatively, a quick review by the Ralph and Stig followed by more review during IETF LC. Ralph, Stig, can you take a look at the document and recommend which approach we should use in this case. (If the document seems reasonable from your point of view then we might go to IETF LC.) |
2007-05-14
|
04 | Jari Arkko | State Change Notice email list have been change to mip4-chairs@tools.ietf.org,draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext@tools.ietf.org,dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org from mip4-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
2007-05-14
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Note]: 'Document shepherd is Pete McCann <mccap@petoni.org>' added by Jari Arkko |
2007-05-11
|
04 | Dinara Suleymanova | PROTO Write-up > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document … PROTO Write-up > (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? Pete McCann is the document shepherd. Yes, I have personally reviewed the document and it 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 been adequately reviewed. I have no concern about the reviews. > (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? To be safe, the document should probably be reviewed by the dhc working group during IETF Last Call to make sure there are no inconsistencies with the way DHCP works and this draft. > (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. No issues. > (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 unanimous consensus to advance the document. I believe that the WG as a whole understands the approach and is comfortable with 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 appeals have been threatened. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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 nits found by the automated checker, and no nits found during manual proof-reading. > (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]. The document has 4 normative reference, each one a published RFC of Proposed Standard or better status. > (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 suggested a > reasonable name for the new registry? See > [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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? The IANA Considerations section is complete. One assignment from the Mobile IP extension space for skippable extensions is requested. Two new number spaces are created and both give a policy of approval by Designated Expert. We have not yet discussed the appointment of such an expert but will do so shortly. > (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 such formal notation is used. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary Existing Mobile IPv4 specifications allow for the configuration of a home address during Mobile IP Registration processing. This document extends the range of parameters that can be configured during registration by allowing for the transport of arbitrary DHCP options in a Mobile IP Registration Request or Response. The options are carried in a new extension to the Mobile IP registration and borrow their structure from existing DHCP options. > Working Group Summary The document completed last call in the mip4 working group in November, 2006. > Personnel > Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the > Responsible Area Director? Pete McCann is the document shepherd. Jari Arkko is the responsible AD. -Pete |
2007-05-11
|
04 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2007-05-08
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt |
2007-05-01
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-02.txt |
2007-02-26
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-01.txt |
2006-06-08
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-00.txt |