Shepherd writeup
rfc7148-14

Hello,

The Netext working group has completed the working group last call for
I-D: Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
<draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-09>.

The I-D is now ready for IESG review and approval. Below is the
completed proto writeup. 

-Chairs


(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. Type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.


(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:

   This specification defines extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol
   for allowing a mobile router in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to obtain
   delegated IP prefixes for its attached mobile networks.  The mobility
   entities in the network will provide network-based mobility
   management support for those delegated IP prefixes just as how IP
   mobility support is provided for the mobile node's home address.
   Even as the mobile router performs a handoff and changes its network
   point of attachment, mobility support is ensured for all the
   delegated IP prefixes and for all the IP nodes in the mobile network
   that use IP address configuration from those delegated IP prefixes.

Working Group Summary:

  The working group has discussed this I-D at length. Comments by
  Alexandru Petrescu
  (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/current/msg02815.html)
  claimed that the proposal was similar to work being done in other
  working groups. However the working group members believe that this
  extension is essential for Proxy Mobile IPv6 and hence needs to be
  published on its own.

Document Quality:

  The document has been reviewed extensively and revised as a result
  of these reviews. The quality of the document at this time is good
  and ready for IESG review.
  No known implementations of this extension to the Proxy Mobile IPv6
  protocol exist. However a few vendors have expressed plans to
  implement it. 
  All reviewers have been appropriately acknowledged in the I-D. 


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 this I-D multiple times (different versions) and
  have worked with the authors in updating and improving it. This
  version of the document is ready for IESG review and publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No.

(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. 

  The I-D proposes a solution for prefix delegation by a mobile
  router. There is no necessity of a broader review from the
  perspective of security, operational complexity, DHCP, DNS or
  internationalization. This specification inherits security and
  operational aspects from the base protocol (RFC5213).

(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. 

  As document shepherd, I do not not have any concerns with 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? 

All authors have confirmed that they are in full conformance of BCP 78
and 79. 
An IPR disclosure has been provided to the WG. See:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2121/


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures. 

  Yes. IPR disclosure has been filed. The WG was notified about this
  IPR disclosure and a last call conducted. The WG did not have any
  comments or concerns expressed regarding the IPR disclosure.

(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 strong WG consensus for publishing this I-D as a proposed
  standard. Consensus ia across the broader WG. 

(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 has not been any extreme discontent by anyone w.r.t this
  I-D. There has been some opposition to this I-D, but this has been
  limited to one WG member only and does not represent the broader WG
  consensus. 

(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. 

I-D nits summary:
"
  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. 

  The document does not specify a MIB, media types of URI types and
  hence does not require a review from experts in those areas.

(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? 

No. All references in this I-D 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. There are no downward normative references.


(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 will not change the status of existing
  RFCs including the Proxy Mobile IPv6 base protocol (RFC5213).


(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 IANA considerations section specifies two actions for IANA. As
  shepherd I have reviewed the IANA considerations section and believe
  that all relevant information has been included for IANA to act on.


(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 IANA registries are required as a result of 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. 

  The I-D does not include any XML code, BNF rules or MIB
  definitions. 

Back