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
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 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?
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
(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:
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
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.