Subject: [PWE3] Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-06.txt

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:42:46 -0700

Document Writeup for draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-06.txt

  (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?

        Andy Malis <[email-masked]>

        Yes, I have reviewed this revision and believe it 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?

        Yes, it has been well reviewed and received good last-call
comments. In addition, it has received a lot of discussion through its
iterations on the pwe3 email list.

  (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?

        No.

  (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.

        No, no concerns or issues. I noticed at least one typo, such
as a space before a comma. This can be corrected by the RFC Editor. No
IPR has been filed.

  (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 strong consensus for 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.)

        No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist </id-info/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?

        Yes, it passes id-nits.

  (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 references are split. There are two normative references
that are still working group drafts. We expect these drafts to be
completing soon.

  (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 [RFC5226]. 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?

        The IANA Considerations section requests the allocation of
three new codepoints in existing registries that belong to the working
group.

  (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?

        N/A

  (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 specifies a mechanism to signal Pseudowire (PW) status
	   messages using an PW associated channel (ACh). Such a mechanism is
	   suitable for use where no PW dynamic control plane exits, known as
	   static PWs, or where a Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE) needs to send
	   a PW status message directly to a far end T-PE. The mechanism allows
	   PW OAM message mapping and PW redundancy to operate on static PWs.

       This document is a product of the PWE3 working group.

       This document is STANDARDS TRACK.

     Working Group Summary
        This document represents the consensus of the working group.
It is a part of the MPLS-TP project in the IETF.

     Document Quality
        It is required for the use of pseudowires for statically
provisioned MPLS-TP, and thus is expected to be widely implemented and
deployed. There are no concerns regarding the document's quality.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
  Andy Malis <[email-masked]>

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
  Stewart Bryant