Subject: [PWE3] Publication request for draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-03

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:04:41 -0400

The PWE3 WG requests that draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-03 be published
as a standards-track RFC. The writeup is below.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Document Writeup for draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-03

As required by RFC 4858 </rfc/rfc4858.txt>, this is the current template
for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard. This updates a Standards Track RFC. Yes, the title page
header is correct.

(2) 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 solves a particular problem with the control word negotiation
mechanism specified in RFC 4447. Based on the problem analysis, a
message exchanging mechanism is introduced to solve the control word
negotiation issue. This document updates the RFC 4447 control word
negotiation mechanism. This update is fully backwards compatible with
existing implementations.

Working Group Summary

This draft had strong consensus in the WG, and received good comments at
the various stages of its development.

Document Quality

There is at least one known vendor implementation of the draft (the
reporter says "Our product manager asked me to thank IETF&PWE3 to help to
solve this problem"), and other vendors have expressed implementation plans.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Andrew Malis and Stewart Bryant.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the draft for quality. It's a relatively
short draft and the algorithm is easy to follow. Because the lead editor is
not a native English speaker, the RFC Editor will probably do a minor
editorial cleanup of the text from an English language perspective.

Note that the draft currently has seven authors. Two of the authors,
Vishwas Manral and Reshad Rahman, have indicated that they are willing to
be moved to the acknowledgements section.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns. It's been presented several times in the WG meetings and
there's been good discussion on the list.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No, there is no known IPR concerning this draft.

(9) 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 in the WG.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

It passes nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This RFC updates RFC 4447. This is included in the title page header, the
abstract, and the introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A