--- Begin Message ---
Hi Jari, Mark,
The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "Distributing a Symmetric FMIPv6 Handover Key using
SEND" (draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-02.txt) has completed WG last
call. It is now ready to move forward in the process. The document
shepherd write-up for the I-D is below. The status sought for this
document is Proposed Standard.
Vijay
-------------------------
(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?
Vijay Devarapalli is the Document Shepherd for this document. I
have reviewed the document and it is ready for forwarding 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?
This document has been reviewed by numerous folks, including
folks who are proficient in IP Mobility and Security. This
document went through a WG last call in the MIPSHOP WG. I have no
concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
performed.
(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?
None.
(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
this issue.
None.
(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 WG consensus in advancing this document.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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.)
No.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
The document meets all the requirements. There were a few minor
nits about additional spacing between words in a few paragraphs.
These nits will be fixed in the next revision of the draft.
(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 splits the references into Normative and Informative
references. This document has a normative dependency on an yet to
be published document - draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis. But
this draft is also being advanced to the IESG at the same time.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations 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 [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?
The IANA considerations section exists and is consistent with
the body of the document. The document requests reservations in
the appropriate IANA registries. No new IANA registries are
created.
(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?
Does not apply.
(1.k) 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
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Fast Mobile IPv6 requires that a Fast Binding Update is secured
using a security association shared between an Access Router and a
Mobile Node in order to avoid certain attacks. In this document, a
method for provisioning a shared key from the Access Router to the
Mobile Node is defined to protect this signaling. The key exchange
messages are required to have SEND security; that is, the source
address is a CGA and the messages are signed using the CGA private
key of the sending node.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?
None.
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 the proposed protocol. The
quality of the document is good.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
Document shepherd: Vijay Devarapalli
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko/Mark Townsley
-----------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
