The Netext WG I-D: "RADIUS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
<draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6-05> has completed working group last
call and is ready to be progressed for IESG review and approval.
The I-D is a standards track document. The proto writeup for this I-D
(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) am the document shepherd for this I-D. I have
reviewed this version of the document and believe that 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 by RADIUS experts as well as a few key WG
members. It has been reviewed adequately. I do not have any concerns
about the depth or breadth of the reviews w.r.t this I-D.
(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?
The document has been reviewed by RADIUS experts. There is also some
implementation experience of the specification. Hence additional
reviews from a specific group or broader community is not
essential. However a review by the Ops area directorate on the various
RADIUS attributes being specified would be useful.
(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
I do not have any specific concerns with the document. The I-D
specifies several new attributes (RADIUS) which are summarized in Sec
5.2 and the AD may want to pay attention to it. There have been no IPR
disclosures related to this I-D.
(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 strong WG consensus behind this document. It is essential for
enabling the deployment of PMIP6 (RFC5213) protocol. The WG as a whole
does understand the relevance of this I-D and agrees with it.
(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.)
(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 throigh the tool and it has passed.
(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].
The document has split references into normative and informative
ones. All normative references are RFCs.
(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?
Yes, the I-D does include an IANA considerations section which lists
the set of attributes that need IANA action. The document does not
recommend any new registry to be created. New RADIUS attributes (PMIP6
specific) are specified by this I-D and IANA assignments handled
(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?
I-D does not contain any XML code, BNF rules or MIB definitions.
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
This document defines new attributes to facilitate Proxy Mobile IPv6
operations using the RADIUS infrastructure. The protocol specified
here uses RADIUS based interfaces of the mobile access
gateway and the local mobility anchor with the AAA server for
authentication, authorization and policy functions. The RADIUS
interactions between the mobile access gateway and the RADIUS-based
AAA server take place when the Mobile Node attaches to the network,
authenticates and authorizes within a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.
Furthermore, this document defines the RADIUS-based interface
between the local mobility anchor and the AAA RADIUS server for
authorizing received Proxy Binding Update messages for the mobile
node's mobility session.
Additionally, this document specifies the baseline for the mobile
access gateway and the local mobility anchor generated accounting.
Working group summary:
The document has been reviewed by several RADIUS protocol experts
as well as key members within the working group. It has undergone
two working group last calls and has been revised based on
feedback from reviewers as well as implementation experience.
There is strong WG consensus behind this document.
There is at least one known implementation of the
protocol. Multiple vendors have indicated plans to implement this
All the key people who have reviewed this I-D are acknowledged in