[Mipshop] (no subject)

["Vijay Devarapalli" <Vijay.Devarapalli at AzaireNet.com>]

The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16e
Networks" (draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e) has completed WG last call.
This is a request to the IESG to consider draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e
for publication as Informational.

The document shepherd write-up for the I-D is below.

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 adequately reviewed. 16ng WG members also
reviewed this draft. It went through a combined MIPSHOP and 16ng
WG last call.

  (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?

No.

  (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.

No concerns.

  (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.

Idnits seems to report issues with RFC 2119 boilerplate, even though
there is a correct one. No other errors.

  (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 references are split into normative and informative. There are
no downward references in the normative references.

  (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 makes no request from IANA.

  (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.

   This document describes how a Mobile IPv6 Fast Handover can be
   implemented on link layers conforming to the 802.16e suite of
   specifications. This document also describes how to optimize the
   FMIPv6 handover procedure over 802.16 networks.

         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?

No.

         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?

Nothing is known about existing implementations or plans for
implementation.

         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

-----------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop