(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?
Informational.
(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:
A Logical-interface is a software semantic internal to the host
operating system. This semantic is available in all popular
operating systems and is used in various protocol implementations.
The Logical-interface support is required on the mobile node attached
to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, for leveraging various network-based
mobility management features such as inter-technology handoffs,
multihoming and flow mobility support. This document explains the
operational details of Logical-interface construct and the specifics
on how the link-layer implementations hide the physical interfaces
from the IP stack and from the network nodes on the attached access
networks. Furthermore, this document identifies the applicability of
this approach to various link-layer technologies and analyzes the
issues around it when used in conjunction with various mobility
management features.
Working Group Summary:
The working group has struggled to arrive at consensus on whether this
document adds value to the Proxy Mobile IP protocol. The concept of a
logical interface is well understood in networking circles and hence
there has not been much interest in getting this published. However
after much debate the working group has agreed that it would help the
community to publish this I-D as an informational document.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
Implementations of logical interfaces are common in most operating
systems.
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
the specification?
Not Applicable.
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?
No. This document does not specify any MIB or media type etc.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
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
the IESG.
I have reviewed the document multiple times and have provided feedback
to the authors. The current version of the document is ready for
publication. And hence is being sent to the IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The concept of a logical interface is straightfoward. However the
concern with this document is that it does not capture all nuances
required to implement a logical interface. And hence while it is
useful from an informative context, it is not really a document that
can be used for implementations.
(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.
No.
(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.
The concern that I have with this document is that it does not
completely address the needs of a logical interface on the client
which would enable session mobility across interfaces. I do not really
see a need for it. However the working group is in favor of publishing
this document.
(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. Every author of this document has confirmed that there are no
known IPRs and they conform with the provisions of BCP 78 and 79.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No.
(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 marginal consensus to publish this document.
It does not have strong or overwhelming support as the need or
benefit is questionable.
(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.
(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.
idnits 2.13.02
/tmp/draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-12.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Document does not specify a MIB, media type or URI types.
(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?
Yes.
The reference in the normative section of the document is also being
sent to the IESG.
(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.
No.
(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).
The document does not have any requests for IANA.
(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.
None required.
(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 or MIB definitions in the document.