Subject: [PWE3] Publication request for draft-ietf-pwe3-eth-oam-iwk-05.txt

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:08:43 +0200

The PWE3 working group requests the publication of draft-ietf-pwe3-eth-oam-iwk-05.txt.

The document write-up is attached below.

Best regards,

Matthew

---------

draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-05.txt

Document Shepard Write-Up

    (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?

   Matthew Bocci ([email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>)
        Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for
        forwarding to the IESG.

    (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, the document has received adequate review. The document has
        received significant review by the WG and received a number
        of comments during WG last call.

    (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 specific concerns.

    (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?

      I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
      been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants.

    (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.)

       None indicated.

    (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?

       Yes. There are a couple of minor I-D nits related to a possibly out of date
       reference to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-message-map and some formatting issues.
       One of the author's email addresses also appears to be incorrect.
       These should be fixed before publication.
There are no formal review criteria.

    (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, the references are split appropriately.

    (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 exists. There are no requests of IANA,
      which seems reasonable given that the document uses existing
      OAM mechanisms and LDP status messaging code points.

    (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?

      There are no sections that use 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

   This document specifies the mapping of defect states between
        Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet
        Pseudowires (PWs) connected in accordance to the PWE3
        architecture to realize an end-to-end emulated Ethernet service.
        It standardizes the behavior of Provider Edges (PEs) with
        respect to Ethernet PW and AC defects.

   This document is a product of the PWE3 working group.

   This document is Standards Track.

Working Group Summary
   Solutions for mapping OAM messages related to defect notifications from
   attachement circuits to PWs for ATM, FR, and TDM services were specified
   in RFC6310. This RFC did not cover Ethernet attachment circuits because
   of a perception at the time that Ethernet OAM mechanisms were less widely
   deployed and their standardization was on-going. The WG decided to handle
   the Ethernet case in a separate draft, which is the subject of this
   proto write-up. This was considered to be an important work item by the
   PWE3 working group, and there were a number of requests to roll this working
   into the draft that became RFC6310. However, ultimately the consensus was
   to progress the Ethernet case separately to not further delay RFC6310.

Document Quality

   Previous PW deployment surveys (see
   draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00) have indicated that the
   majority of PWs are Ethernet, and therefore standardizing the interworking
   of defect notifications for emulated Ethernet services is expected to be
   of significant interest to the IETF and the operator community in general.
   There are believed to be numerous implementations and deployments of Ethernet
   OAM mechanisms referred to in this draft, including cases where the Ethernet
   service is supported over Pws.

   The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review.

 Personnel
   The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci.
   The responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant.