Shepherd writeup
rfc6909-12

(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?

Type of RFC being requested: Proposed Standard
The I-D proposes a new option to be included for use in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 signalng (RFC5213) and hence a proposed standard status is being
requested for the document.
The title page header of the I-D requests a Proposed standard status
for the RFC.

(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 a mechanism and a related mobility option
  for carrying IPv4 Offload traffic selectors between a mobile access
  gateway and a local mobility anchor in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.
  Based on the received offload flow selectors from the local mobility
  anchor, a mobile access gateway can enable offload traffic rule on
  the selected IPv4 flows.

  The intent of the option being defined in this I-D is to enable
  IPv4 traffic associated with a mobile node to be routed from the
  access network itself instead of having to tunnel it back to the
  home network (Local Mobility Agent).

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?

There is nothing unusual about this I-D or WG process w.r.t this I-D
that is noteworthy. The I-D has been presented and discussed at
various IETF meetings and has been reviewed by several WG members and
chair. Since one of the co-authors (Rajeev Koodli) is also a Netext WG
chair, he has recused himself from the review or shepherding process
and I am acting as the sole chair with responsibility for this I-D.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
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?

There are no known implementations of this extension at the present time.
A few vendors have expressed plans to implement this specification as part of their 3GPP 
solutions for traffic offloading. 
All reviewers of this I-D have been acknowledged and there is no reason for a special mention of any
specific reviewer.
This I-D did not specify a MIB or any Media type and hence such experts were not called upon to provide
their feedback.
The readbility of the document could be improved. As part of the chair review this has been suggested to
the authors.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document shepherd: Basavaraj Patil (NetExt WG Co-chair)
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 (Basavaraj Patil) have reviewed the I-D multiple times and provided
feedback to the authors. The authors have made efforts to address my
comments and resolve them. The current version of the I-D is ready to
be progressed to the IESG since the proposed option/extension to Proxy
MIP6 signaling is quite clear as specified in the I-D. The authors are
likely to revise the I-D further based on some additional comments
that I have sent them. However I believe that the I-D in its current
state is ready for IESG review.


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

No. The I-D has been reviewed by WG members who understand the
protocol well as well as people outside the WG.

(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.

There is some ambiguity regarding the interaction with policy servers
and protocols used for such. However the I-D clearly indicates that
such interaction is out of scope of this I-D. The focus of this I-D is
to specify the option that allows selective IPv4 traffic offloading
using NAT functionality in the access network. And hence the policy
aspects which are described in the I-D are not part of the core
functionality being specified here.

(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 have expressed some reservations about parts
of the I-D which explain how an LMA sets the traffic selectors or how
a MAG chooses the traffic selectors to be sent as a proposal in the
request. The WG has discussed these issues in the past and I have
raised the same with the authors. There are no concerns about these
scenarios and it is okay to advance the 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?

Each author has confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and 79
have been met.

(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 strong WG consensus behind this I-D. While a few are very
vocal and strongly support it the WG as a whole understands its need and
supports it.

(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.

None.

As per IDnits tool:  Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment
(--).

(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 define any MIBS, media types 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?

No. All normative references are existing 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.

No. Publication of this document will not change the status of
existing Proxy Mobile IPv6 RFCs. This is an extension to RFC5213 and
does not affect the base protocol.

(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).

I have reviewed the IANA considerations section and it is consistent
with the body of the document. The instructions for assignment by IANA
are clear.

(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 needed or require expert review for future
allocations.

(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.

Document does not specify any XML code, BNF rules or, MIB definitions
and hence no such reviews have been performed. 
Back