Subject: [netext] Request to progress Netext WG ID: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-07.txt

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:07:18 -0800

The Netext WG I-D mentioned below is ready for IESG review and approval.
Please find below the document shepherd writeup.

I-D: Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
     <draft-ietf-netext-redirect-07.txt>

-Rajeev

  (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?

Document shepherd: Rajeev Koodli
Yes, I have reviewed this version of the document and I believe it is
ready for IESG review and 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 had adequate reviews by key WG members.
I do not have any concerns regarding the depth or breadth of the
reviews.

  (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?

I do not have concerns, but the document can benefit from a security review,
especially of one of the features ³Runtime Redirection with Binding
Creation².

  (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.

I do not have any specific concerns at this time regarding this
document. The document has been presented and discussed adequately in
previous WG meetings and on the mailing list.

I am aware of an IPR disclosures related to this I-D: ³Huawei Technologies
Cp. Ltd¹s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-netext-redirect-03²,
dated September 18, 2010.
URL: 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_t
ag=19240

  (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 concurrence among active participants on the subject. I
believe the majority of the WG understands the ID and do not object.

  (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.)

No threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been expressed
regarding this I-D.

  (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 through the ID nits tool and found no issues.

  (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].

References are split into normative and informative sections.
The normative references are published 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, I have verified the IANA Considerations Section. The documents requires
IANA allocations for two new Mobility Options and two new Status Codes. The
respective registries are identified.

  (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?

Not applicable.

  (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:

Proxy Mobile IPv6 is the IETF standard for network-based mobility
management.  In Proxy Mobile IPv6, mobile nodes are topologically
anchored at a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA), while connected to a Mobility
Anchor Gateway (MAG).
There may be some deployments in which the LMA may wish to redirect a MAG to
an alternate LMA for session establishment. For such deployments, this
document specifies a new protocol between the MAG and the LMA to assist with
runtime LMA assignment (as opposed to LMA selection via DNS or AAA). In a
deployment where the MAG does not support the necessary extensions, the
behavior defaults to that specified in RFC 5213.

There is support in the WG to advance this work. There has not been any
major controversy. 
No known public implementations.