The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Multi-homing for small scale fixed network Using Mobile IP and NEMO' <draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-multihome-fixed-network-03.txt> as an Experimental RFC. The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11618&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-multihome-fixed-network-03.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary Technical Summary This document specifies the use of techniques either developed or under development in the MONAMI6 and NEMO working groups for solving a multihoming problem in a fixed network. Working Group Summary This is an independent submission via the RFC Editor. Protocol Quality Jari Arkko has reviwed the specification for conflicts with IETF work, as specified in RFC 3932. The NEMO, MONAMI6, SHIM6, and MIP6 chairs were contacted during this review. Note to RFC Editor The official response is The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in the MONAMI6, NEMO, MIP6, and SHIM6 working groups, but this does not prevent publishing. In addition we would like the RFC Editor and the authors to be careful in how they refer to ongoing work, to use the latest reference and to correctly characterize the state of the work. Specifically, draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa reference should point to ongoing work in MONAMI6 WG, i.e., draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa, which is a later development of the same specification. The normative/informative reference status should be reviewed along with the text in the body of the document. The text should portray this work as an example of ongoing work unless the authors are willing to hold their work up for a normative reference. Similarly, draft-wakikawa-mip6-nemo-haha-01.txt has been discussed in the NEMO WG but has not yet been adopted, so it too should be characterized as an example of ongoing work. IESG Note Please use the standard IESG note 2: This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information. IANA Note There are no IANA considerations. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
