>(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?
This draft should be published as an Experimental RFC, as indicated
by the mip4 charter and the current document header.
>(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:
> 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 specification defines extensions to Mobile IP protocol for allowing
a mobile node with multiple interfaces to register a care-of address for
each of its network interfaces and to simultaneously establish multiple
IP tunnels with its home agent. This essentially allows the mobile
node to utilize all the available network interfaces and build an higher
aggregated logical pipe with its home agent for its home address traffic.
Furthermore, these extensions also allow the mobile node and the home
agent to negotiate IP traffic flow policies for binding individual flows
with the registered care-of addresses.
>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
The draft was uncontroversial, but the process took a very long time
because of a lack of reviewers. Adequate review has finally ben obtained.
> 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?
There is at least one implementation of the protocol.
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Peter McCann is the document shepherd. Brian Haberman is the responsible
>(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 document shepherd has reviewed the document for completeness
and clarity, and believes the document is ready for publication.
>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
>breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. Several reviews were obtained in the final round before submission,
and no major issues were detected. Minor editorial changes were accepted.
>(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
No external directorates needed to be consulted; this document does not
define MIBs or extend any other protocol than Mobile IPv4.
>(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
>(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.
The shepherd has received positive confirmation from all current authors
that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have been filed.
>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No 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 working group as a whole understands and agrees with the document.
>(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 appeals have been threatened and no extreme discontent has been
>(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
No nits were found by the idnits checker.
>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is required; the only protocol extended by this document
is Mobile IPv4 and the extensions are described with message-layout
ASCII art in the manner appropriate for Mobile IPv4.
>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>either normative or informative?
>(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?
Only published RFCs are referenced by the document.
>(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 refs are present in the document; it is going for Experimental
>(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.
No other documents are updated, obsoleted, or will have their status
changed by the decision to publish this document.
>(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).
IANA considerations give the exact names of the registries that need
to be updated. The specification of the allocation policy for
the newly created subtype registry is defined.
>(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.
The new extension sub-type registry has an allocation policy of Expert
Review. I would suggest Sri Gundavelli as the Expert for this space.
>(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 such formal languages are used.