(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 I-D is being progressed for publication as a Proposed Standard.
The I-D proposes new extensions which will need IANA action and hence
the standards track is appropriate.
The type of RFC is indicated in the title header of the I-D.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Access Network Identifier (ANI) Mobility option was introduced in
Access Network Identifier Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (RFC 6757).
This enables a Mobility Access Gateway (MAG) to convey identifiers
like network identifier, geolocation, and operator identifier. This
specification extends the Access Network Identifier mobility option
with sub options to carry civic location and MAG group Identifier.
This specification also defines an ANI Update-Timer sub option that
determines when and how often the ANI option will be updated.
Working Group Summary:
The WG initially considered updating RFC 6757 (Access Network
Identifier (ANI) Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6). However after
considering the scope and the extensions being proposed, it was
decided that a separate I-D extending RFC 6757 was a better approach.
Consensus was strong to create a new WG I-D and extend RFC6757.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
Not at the present time.
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
At least one vendor has expressed plans to implement this
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?
All reviewers have been acknowledged in the I-D.
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 does not specific a MIB or media type.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Doc Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
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
I have reviewed the document multiple times and provided feedback
to the authors. It is now ready for publication and hence being
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 about the depth or breadth of the reviews performed to
(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
Do not see a reason for additonal reviews from any specific area.
(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.
There are no concerns or issues with this I-D. The working group
supports this I-D and its publication.
(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?
Yes. All authors have confirmed conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78, 79.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No known IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
WG consensus is strong.
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 understands the document and the extension to RFC
6757 being proposed therein. There is general agreement in the WG
about the need for this extension.
(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.)
There is no disagreement or discontent in the working group
regarding this document.
(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.
No major ID nits.
Output from checking is :
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No MIB, media type of URI types are specified in the document.
(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?
All normative references are published RFCs.
If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their
(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.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?
Yes. Listed in the abstract.
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.
(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
The IANA section is clear in terms of the instructions. There is
no requirement to create a new registry for this I-D.
The registry where the IANA assignments will be maintained is
(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 being requested.
(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 XML code, BNF rules, MIBs etc. are specified in the document.