Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Discovery for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-08

[Ballot discuss]
In the Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter on 4-Oct-2010, two issues
  were raised.  I have not see a response to either one, and I think
  that they both deserve a response.

  1. There is no discussion of using Service Location Protocol
  (RFC 2165).  Maybe it is unsuitable, but that should be explained
  if so.

  2. There is no discussion of whether the chosen solution should
  preferably return an IP address or an FQDN. Since there is a general
  architectural recommendation to use FQDNs (RFC 1958) this draft
  should, IMHO, either follow that recommendation or give a good
  reason why not.

[Ballot discuss]
In the Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter on 4-Oct-2010, two issues
  were raised.  I have not see a response to either one, and I think
  that they both deserve a response.

  1. There is no discussion of using Service Location Protocol
  (RFC 2165).  Maybe it is unsuitable, but that should be explained
  if so.

  2. There is no discussion of whether the chosen solution should
  preferably return an IP address or an FQDN. Since there is a general
  architectural recommendation to use FQDNs (RFC 1958) this draft
  should, IMHO, either follow that recommendation or give a good
  reason why not.

[Ballot comment]
1) Sec 3: Missing "an"

OLD:

as IKEv2 [RFC5996] IPsec tunnel [RFC4303].

NEW:

as an IKEv2 [RFC5996] IPsec tunnel [RFC4303].

# (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 is Vidya Narayanan. I have personally reviewed the document and I believe the document is ready 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?

The document has had extensive reviews within the WG. I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of reviews received.


# (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 have no concerns about the reviews for this document.


# (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 have no concerns on the document. There have been no IPR disclosures filed on this document.


# (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 a strong consensus behind the document.


# (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 has threatened to appeal and the document is a product of the WG as a whole.


# (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?

No ID nit errors are present on the document and the document meets the review criteria.

# (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 document presently only has informative references.  It should list RFC5213 as a normative reference - this should be revised along with comments from AD review.

# (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 [RFC2434]. 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?

There are no actions for IANA in this document.  However, an IANA considerations section stating that does exist.


# (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?

No formal language segments exist.


# (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
  The Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification in RFC 5213 describes network based mobility management for IPv6 hosts across IPv6 network domains.  This document describes solutions that would allow dynamic discovery of the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) that can be used by Mobile Access Gateways (MAG).  This makes large Proxy Mobile IPv6 deployments more practical to realize.   

Working Group Summary
  There is a consensus in the NETLMM WG for publication as an informational RFC.

Document Quality
  The document has gone through various reviews and a successful WGLC.

Personnel
  Responsible AD is Jari Arkko and the document shepherd is Vidya Narayanan.