Subject: [manet] Request to publish draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-04.txt - writeup included

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:17:55 +0530

I would like to request that draft-ietf-manet-timvetlv-04.txt be  
published. I am the shepherding WG chair.

===WRITE-UP===

     1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the
  Internet Draft (I-D), and in particular, do they believe this I-D is
  ready to forward to the IESG for publication?

  Yes the chairs have reviewed this document, and we believe that it is
  ready to go to the IETF for publication.

     2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
  and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
  breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  Yes the I-D has been adequately reviewed.

     3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
  particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
  complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

  We do not have any particular concerns regarding additional
  required reviews for this document.

     4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document
  that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
  perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
  have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
  your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it
  that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns
  in the write-up.

  No contentious issues were raised during WG discussion on this
  document.

     5. 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?

  The three main WG protocol documents contain a reference to this
  I-D. That is, NHDP, DYMO, and OLSRv2 all utilize the TLV format and
  types specified in this document.

     6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
  discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
  email to the Responsible Area Director.

  There was no WG conflict regarding this document.

     7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of
  the I-D Checklist items ?

  Yes the document adheres to the I-D checklist items.

     8. Is the document split into normative and informative
  references? Are there normative references to I-Ds, where the I-Ds are
  not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
  (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
  references to I-Ds, it will delay publication until all such I-Ds are
  also ready for publication as RFCs.)

  Yes the references are split into normative and informative
  references.

     9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
  Standard, Informational?)

  Proposed Standard.

    10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
  announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections:

            * Technical Summary

  This document specifies the syntax of a PacketBB (publication
  requested) TLV for representing time. It also defines two TLV types
  that conform to the TimeTLV representation.

            * Working Group Summary

  This document contains information that was originally in OLSRv2.  It
  was pulled out and generalized, since it is applicable to many MANET
  WG protocols. It is an integral component of NHDP, OLSRv2, and DYMO.

            * Protocol Quality

  The TimeTLV format was architected to represent a wide range of time
  values. The necessity and flexibility of the format is demonstrated
  by the two TimeTLV type instances specified in this document.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet