Subject: [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-11.txt

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:23:45 -0600

Hello,

The Netext WG I-D: Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
<draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-11.txt> has completed WG last call and is
ready for IESG review and approval.

We would like to request the IESG to review this I-D and progress it
towards publication.

-Chairs

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard
This I-D specifies a new mobility extension and enables application of
QoS to different flows. And hence it is appropriate to progress this
document on standards track.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up.
Technical Summary:

   This specification defines a new mobility option, the Quality of
   Service (QoS) option, for Proxy Mobile IPv6.  This option can be used
   by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway for
   negotiating Quality of Service parameters for a mobile node's IP
   flows.  The negotiated QoS parameters can be used for QoS policing
   and marking of packets to enforce QoS differentiation on the path
   between the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway.
   Furthermore, making QoS parameters available on the mobile access
   gateway enables mapping of these parameters to QoS rules that are
   specific to the access technology and allows those rules to be
   enforced on the access network using access technology specific
   approaches.

Working Group Summary:

The WG supports this I-D as it is relevant in the context of the
protocols applicability within 3GPP standards. There is strong support
to standardize this work. It has been reviewed multiple times by
several experts.

Document Quality:

There is at least one known implementation of the protocol. There is
good support for the specification and an interest in utilizing the
protocol as a feature by various vendors.
All reviewers of the I-D have been acknowledged in the document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Brian Haberman

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have reviewed the I-D and this version of the document is ready for
consideration by the IESG. The justification for the needed mobility
extension to support QoS especially in the scenario of a handover from
a 3GPP access to non-3GPP access is weak. But it does have
applicability in various scenario in the context of 3GPP networks and
architectures.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No. There is no need for a special review by experts from security,
operations, DNS, DHCP etc.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has 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.

I do not have any concerns about the document and believe it is ready
to be progressed by the IESG.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes. All authors have confirmed compliance.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No known IPR disclosure which references this document.

(9) 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 to publish it as a
proposed standard.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Formal review by a MIB Doctor, media type or URI type not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

All normative references are published RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No. Publishing this document does not change the status of other
existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).

The IANA considerations section is clear and easy to understand.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registrie

      This specification defines a new mobility attribute
      format, Quality of Service attribute.  The format of this
      attribute is described in Section 4.2.  This attribute can be
      carried in Quality of Service mobility option.  The type values
      for this attribute needs to be managed by IANA, under the
      Registry, Quality of Service Attribute Registry.  This registry
      should be created under "Mobile IPv6 Parameters" registry at
      <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None.