Subject: [Dime] PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-02

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:34:11 +0300

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6 
=======================================

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-02

   (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?

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd. 
The document is ready for publication. 

Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD. 

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

The document was reviewed within the DIME working group and also by
members
of the NETLMM group. 

   (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?

There are no concerns regarding the amount of review. 
The document will be reviewed by the AAA doctors group in a later
publication
phase. 

   (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

There are no concerns with the document.

   (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is consensus within the DIME WG to publish the document. 

This document is also of interest to the 3GPP to use this specification
(i.e., it is listed on the dependency list).

   (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.)

Nobody stated discontent.  

   (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?

The ABNF has been checked. 
The nits have been checked. 

   (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 in the document have been split into normative and
informative. 

   (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

IANA considerations exist within the document and are consistent with 
the body of the document. 

The document defines 4 new AVPs, registers 3 values in a registry
established 
with RFC 5447 and one value for the Result-Code AVP. 

   (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?

The ABNF in the document is OK. Note that it uses the ABNF defined in
RFC 3588
and hence the ABNF checking tools typically produce errors. 

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

      Technical Summary

   This specification defines the Diameter support for the Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 and the corresponding mobility service session setup.  The
   policy information needed by the Proxy Mobile IPv6 is defined in
   mobile node's policy profile, which could be downloaded from the
   Diameter server to the Mobile Access Gateway once the mobile node
   attaches to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 Domain and performs access
   authentication.  During the binding update exchange between the
   Mobile Access Gateway and the Local Mobility Anchor, the Local
   Mobility Anchor can interact with the Diameter server in order to
   update the remote policy store with the mobility session related
   information.

      Working Group Summary

This document was progressed through the DIME working group without 
delays or problems. 

      Document Quality

This document is the product of the DIME working group. We would like 
to thank the NETLMM working group for their help. It is anticipated that

vendors interested in Proxy Mobile IP are also going to implement the
client side part of this protocol. The current implementation status 
of this specification is, however, unknown. 

      Personnel

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. 
Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD.