[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Submission of draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-04 for publications as Informational
(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?
I am the shepherd for this document. I have read this version, and
believe that it is ready for publication as an RFC.
(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?
I believe that it has had adequate review. It was originally posted
in March 2006 and discussed in that meeting of the working group, and
resubmitted as a working group document in May of that year. It was
proposed as an extension of the v6ops broadband work, specifically
addressing 802.16/Wimax networks. There were various issues raised
and dealt with during subsequent revisions. Comment on the mailing
list came from Jonne Soininen, Brian Carpenter, Eric Klein, Bruno
Miguel Sousa (speaking for the 16NG working group in a solicited
review), Jim Bound, and JinHyeock Choi. A review was also solicited
from mip6; I believe that the response was directly to the authors,
as I have no copy of it. The document was last-called in January 2007
and sent to the Area Director, David Kessens, in February, who
responded asking whether we had received any comments to the effect
that the document was needed. In a re-last-call in April, undertaken
to solicit additional review and address the AD's concern, the
comments both in the meeting and on the list were supportive, and
specifically Jim Bound stated that he considered the draft to be
helpful in 802.16 deployment.
(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?
Given that review has already occurred in v6ops, mip6, and 16ng, I
don't see a need for further review.
(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.
If such concerns exist, they have not been raised to me.
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 IPR disclosure was discussed in the working group. I looked at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_search.cgi a moment ago,
which reported:
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and
was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@ietf.org and
inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might
have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server
error log.
(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?
IPv6 Operations tends to be a group in which projects are done by
small groups with relevant expertise and reviewed by others. The
sense I have had in meetings and on the list has been that there is
general support. That said, the primary cognitive input has come from
the authors and a few others, listed above.
(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 such conflicts have been brought to my attention.
(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.
yes. I note the iddnits report here. The "intended status" of the
document is "informational, not "proposed standard" as the tool
presumed, and the "unused reference" was in fact used but broken
across a line ending. The normative reference to RFC 4779 is a
spurious note given that both 4779 and this document are informative.
The other checklist items were not issues with this document.
The RFC Editor will note that the authors speak English as a second
language, which will necessitate a certain level of copy editing. I
find the document quite readable even so, so this should not be onerous.
idnits 2.04.09
- The downloaded file seems to be corrupt, proceeding with outdated
information.)
tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-04.txt:
- Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.)
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by
RFC 4748:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-
guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
== No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming
Proposed
Standard
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
(See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis' is
defined on
line 657, but no explicit reference was found in the
text
'[I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis] Koodli, R., "Fast
Handovers for...'
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4779
Summary: 1 error (**), 2 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
(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].
Yes it has divided its references. The "normative" references are all
to RFCs, and therefore have no publication issue.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?
The document creates no registries, and says as much in its IANA
considerations section.
(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?
There are no such sections.
(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
This document provides a detailed description of IPv6 deployment and
integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access
networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. It discusses the
main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access networks, their
differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks, and how IPv6 is deployed
and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16 technologies.
Working Group Summary
The document was reviewed by participants from both the IPv6
Operations WG and the 16NG Working Group. No lingering concerns
remained as it completed its review.
Document Quality
As described in the IPv6 Operations charter, this document's purpose
was to review the issues that might arise in deploying IPv6 in an
IEEE 802.16 network. The document uses "IEEE 802.16" as essentially
equivalent to "Wimax", although one could argue that they differ. It
builds on the structure and considerations of RFC 4779, which is a
more general document looking at IPv6 deployment in broadband
networks in general. It notes issues such as the fact that 802.16 QoS
definitions differ from and have to be operationally mapped to IP
Differentiated Services concepts, and specifically comments on the
use of IPv6 Multicast, QoS, Security, and Network Management in IEEE
802.16 fixed and mobile access networks.
Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Fred Baker. The Responsible AD is Ron Bonica.