Subject: [CCAMP] Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:57:49 +0100

This is the document shepherd write-up for

draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04

(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?

This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document.

This is appropriate because the document describes an update of
the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Parameters" registry for the OTN signals as specified in [RFC7139]
as defined in [RFC 5226].

This track is noted in the document header.

(2) 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 updates [RFC7139] to allow the "OTN Signal Type"
subregistry to also support Specification Required policies, as
defined in [RFC5226].

Working Group Summary:

This document has been reviewed in the CCAMP working group and
received comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

Document Quality:

The document is concise and provides proper justification for
the update of the OTN Signal Type registry.

Personnel:

Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd
Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

(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.

The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the
document. He believes it is ready for publication.

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

No concerns.

(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 such content.

(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.

No such concerns.

(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?

The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements
that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded.

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

No disclosures have been made.

(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?

See (2).
There has been an extensive review and there is good consensus on the
document.

(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 threats or discontent.

(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.

No nits found.

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

No such reviews needed.

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

All normative and informative references are identified correctly.

(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?

None such.

(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.

None such.

(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 issues.

(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 the most important part of this
document. It is concise and appropriate.

However to provide more clarity on the update process I propose to
replace the text: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required"
by: "Standards Action" or "Specification Required"

(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
registries.

Guidance for future updates is provided.

(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.

There are no such sections.

------------
Best regards, Huub.