Hello,
The WG I-D: Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS procedures
<draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-05> has completed working group last
call and is ready for IESG review and publication.
Please find below the proto writeup for this I-D:
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Document to be published as: Informational RFC
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
The I-D provides information only and does not mandate or specify a
protocol and hence the type of RFC requested is appropriate.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes.
(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 document provides guidelines for achieving end to end QoS in a
PMIPv6 domain where the access network is based on IEEE 802.11.
RFC 7222 describes QoS negotiation between a MAG and LMA in a PMIPv6
mobility domain. The negotiated QoS parameters can be used for QoS
policing and marking of packets to enforce QoS differentiation on the
path between the MAG and LMA. IEEE 802.11-2012, WMM-AC describes
methods for QoS negotiation between a Wi-Fi Station (MN in PMIPv6
terminology) and an Access Point. This document provides a mapping
between the above two sets of QoS procedures and the associated QoS
parameters. This document is intended to be used as a companion
document to RFC 7222 to enable implementation of end to end QoS.
Working Group Summary:
The working group initially had reservations about taking up this
work. However the authors have subsequently worked through the
concerns and updated the scope and the I-D to better meet the needs
of the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol in WiFi deployments. There is
strong WG support at this time to publish this I-D as an
informational RFC.
Document Quality:
There are no known implementation of the QoS for WiFi proposal in
this I-D. The document does not propose any protocol per se.
The I-D has been reviewed by multiple people and they have been
acknowledged.
The document does not specify any MIB, Media type or URIs.
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 the I-D and am satisfied with the quality of the
document. It is ready for 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 document has been adequately reviewed and I do not see a reason
for additional review from a specific quarter.
(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.
I have no concerns of issues with this document. The working group
has reviewed this I-D and no issues have been raised.
(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 compliance to 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 known IPR disclosure pertaining to this I-D.
(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 sufficient WG support and consensus behind this I-D for
publication as an informational RFC.
(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.
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
(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 any MIB, media type or URIs.
(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?
All normative references 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.
(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 does noy affect any other existing RFCs.
(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 require any IANA actiona.
(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 IANA actioned are 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.
I have reviewed the I-D and run automated checks and am satisfied
with the quality.
Rgds,
-Basavaraj