(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?
Proposed Standard
(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
The local mobility anchor in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain is able to
provide access network and access operator specific handling or
policing of the mobile node traffic using information about the
access network to which the mobile node is attached. This
specification defines a mechanism and a related mobility option for
carrying the access network identifier and the access operator
identification information from the mobile access gateway to the
local mobility anchor using proxy mobile IPv6 signaling messages.
Working Group Summary
The I-D has followed normal IETF WG process and has consensus
regarding the proposed extension to Proxy Mobile IPv6. There have
been no controversies or opposition to this proposal.
Document Quality
No known or announced implementations of the protocol exist. However
there may be unannounced implementations in progress. Multiple
vendors have indicated interest in implementing these extensions in
their products.
The I-D has undergone multiple reviews and they have been
acknowledged in the document itself.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Document shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Brian Haberman
(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.
I have reviewed multiple versions of the I-D and have suggested
changes to the text which have been incorporated. Questions about
security (specifically provady) also have been addressed
satisfactorily. Hence I believe the I-D 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 concerns. I am satisfied with the number as well as depth and
breadth of the reviews.
(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.
I do not believe there is a need for a broader review or review by
specific experts from the area of security or internationalization
etc.
(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.
I have no concerns with this document and additionally do not believe
that WG members have any concerns either.
(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.
Each of the author has 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
(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 disclosure that references this I-D has 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?
There is sufficient WG consensus behind this document. As has been the
norm a few core contributors in the WG are supportive of the I-D and
approve of it while the majority are silent. However I do believe that
the WG as a whole understands this I-D and the proposed extensions.
(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 threats of an appeal have been raised or for that matter extreme
discontent with this I-D.
(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.
The idnits tool does not raise any flags or problems with this I-D.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This I-D does not specify a MIB, media type or URI type.
(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?
All normative references are published RFCs.
(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.
(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 does not affect any existing RFCs. This
I-D specifies an extension to Proxy MIP6 signaling and does not change
the status of any other published 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).
I have reviewed the IANA section and believe that sufficient
and appropriate information w.r.t the proposed extensions, and the
actions needed by IANA have been specified.
(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 registry is proposed by this I-D.
(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.
This I-D does not include any XML code, BNF rules or MIB definitions
which would require an automated check and review.