Subject: [PWE3] PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-control-protocol-extensi-06.txt

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:48:09 +0000

PROTO Statement:  draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-control-protocol-extensi-06.txt

The PWE3 Chairs would like to request Standards Track publication
of this document.

(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?

Stewart Bryant ([email-masked]) is the Shepherd. I have
reviewed the document and 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?

This document (-04 revision) has been reviewed by the WG. A detailed
list of all of this issues and the resolution was presented to the
WG and published as (-05) and a minor editorial was published one
week later (-06) which is the version that we propose to advance.
The proposed advancement of this document was discussed at the last IETF.

I have no concerns about state of readiness of this document, although
it needs a minor edit to change the affiliation of one of the authors
which we can do as an editor's note.

    (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 regarding the requirement for further review.

    (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.

I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there
concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or Responsible AD.

    (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?

This document is fully understood and supported by the PWE3
WG.  There is no contention as to whether this work provides utility
and it is generally supported across the WG.

    (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 one has indicated to the WG chairs or WG mailing list that they
have intentions of appealing any proposed publication of this
document.

    (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?

I have reviewed nits output on IETF tools, and there is nothing
that should prevent this document advancing.

    (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
           informative?

Yes.

           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].

All references are RFCs (two are listed under draft names, but have
recently advanced. This will be fixed in the edit phase).

    (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 suggested a
           reasonable name for the new registry?  See
           [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

Yes.

Also note that we have been requested by the authors to provide
early allocation of three Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type values
and I propose that we should do this.

    (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?

Not applicable

    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
           Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
           "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
           announcement contains the following sections:

           Technical Summary
  This document defines extension to the PWE3 control protocol [RFC4447]
  and PWE3 IANA allocations [RFC4446] required for setup of TDM
  (RFC4553, RFC5086 and RFC5087) pseudowires in MPLS networks.

            Working Group Summary

This document has been reviewed by the experts in the PWE3 WG
and there are no outstanding issues.

           Protocol Quality

This is a simple extension to RFC4447 to allow the provisioning of
some additional (well known) PW types using the already established
rules and procedures.

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Stewart Bryant ([email-masked])

              Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Mark Townsley ([email-masked])

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3