Subject: [MBONED] Publication request for <draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-09.txt>

From: Hiroshi Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:45:51 +0900

Dear Ron and Dan, (cc: IESG secretary and mboned list),

I would like to request to publish <draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-09.txt>.
Attached below is the "Document Shepherd Write-Up" for this version of the draft.

Thank you.
Hiroshi (mboned WG co-chair)

--------------------------------------------

   (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?

Hiroshi Ohta, one of the mboned co-chairs, is the Document 
Shepherd for this document.  He reviewed this version of the 
document and he thinks it is ready to forward to the IESG 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.  Mboned WG conducted WGLC with -06 version.  -09 version 
reflects the comment resolution which happend during the WGLC 
and subsequent discussions including discussions on -07 and -08 
versions.  The Document Shepherd has no concern about the depth 
or breadth of the reviews.

   (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, he does not have any concern.  The initial version of this 
document was submitted about three years ago and there was no 
negative comments up to now.

   (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, he does not have any specific concern.  No IPR disclosure 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?

The Document Shepherd believes that the consensus is acceptable 
level.  There were not many comments on the ML but none of the 
comments were negative.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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
          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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Yes, he personally verified.  This check indicated one warning 
for a reference in the informative references section.  Current 
draft refers to <draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-11.txt> but now a later 
version <draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-12.txt> exists.

   (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].

Yes, this document splits its references into normative and 
informative.  Normative references section includes one (1) ID.  
However, it is already in the RFC editor's queue.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the 
body of the document.  It does not request anything.

   (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?

No part of this document is written in a formal language.

   (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
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

This document describes multicast routing architectures that are
currently deployed on the Internet.  This document briefly describes
those protocols and references their specifications.
This memo also obsoletes and reclassifies to Historic several older
RFCs.  These RFCs describe multicast routing protocols that were
never widely deployed or have fallen into disuse.

          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
             For example, was there controversy about particular points
             or were there decisions where the consensus was
             particularly rough?

There was not any controversy about this document.  There were 
not many comments on the ML but none of the comments were negative.

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
             merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
             e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
             conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
             Review, on what date was the request posted?

This document surveys the currently proposed/used protocols but 
it does not propose any new protocol.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Document Shepherd: Hiroshi Ohta (one of the mboned co-chairs)
Responsible Area Director: Ron Bonica (Operations and Management Area Director)

----------------------- end -----------------------

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