Shepherd writeup


The Netext working group I-D: "Bulk Re-registration Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", <draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08> has
completed working group last call and is ready to be progressed.
Please consider this as a request for review and approval for
publication this I-D by the IESG.

The I-D is to be progressed on standards track.


(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? 

I (Basavaraj Patil) will be the document shepherd for this I-D.
I have reviewed the I-D and believe it is ready to be forwarded to the
IESG 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 reviewed sufficiently by key WG members. I have
no concerns regarding the depth or breadth of 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? 

I have no concerns with the current set of reviews and do not believe
any further broader reviews are needed. Reviews by the various
directorates during the IETF last call process will anyway help.
The I-D does not have any XML code or internationalization aspects and
hence does not need reviews from experts in that quarter.

(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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue. 

There are no concerns or issues with this document.

(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 sufficient WG consensus behind this document. It has been
discussed within the working group for over 2 years now. The norm has
been that a few WG members are active while most are passive. The
active WG members understand and agree with this I-D.

(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. There have been no threats of appeals or otherwise w.r.t this I-D.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and 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? 

Yes. I have run the I-D through the ID nits tool and no issues exist.

(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]. 

Yes, the document has split the references into normative and
informative ones. All references are to published RFCs. There are no
pending dependencies.

(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 suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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 document contains an IANA considerations section with clear
instructions of the actions required by IANA. The specification does
not require a new registry but uses the existing registry and adds new
attributes to that registry.

(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? 

The document does not contain any XML code or BNF rules. It does not
contain any MIB definitions either.

(1.k) 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 

   For extending the lifetime of a mobility session, the Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 specification requires the mobile access gateway to send a Proxy
   Binding Update message to the local mobility agent on a per-session
   basis.  In the absence of signaling semantics for performing
   operations with group specific scope, it results in significant
   amount of signaling traffic on a periodic basis between a given
   mobile access gateway and a local mobility anchor.  This document
   defines an optimization to the binding update and revocation
   operations in Proxy Mobile IPv6 for performing operations with group
   specific scope using of a group identifier.

Working Group Summary 
   There is WG consensus regarding this proposal. The I-D has been
   presented and discussed at several WG meetings. It has also been
   sufficiently reviewed and the document quality improved over
   multiple revisions.

Document Quality 
   There are no known implementations of this protocol at the present
   time. WG members who helped with the reviews have been acknowledged
   in the I-D.
   The document quality is good and can serve as the basis for an
   implementation. Clear guidelines for processing by the Mobile
   Access Gateway and the Local Mobility Agent have been specified.