Subject: [PWE3] Publication request for draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06.txt

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:06:58 +0200

The PWE3 working group requests publication of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06.txt as a standards track RFC.

Please find the document write-up below.

Best regards,

Matthew

draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(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?

   Standards track.

   This is appropriate as the draft describes a set of procedures for
   interworking defect notifications between Ethernet attachment circuits
   and PWs that will have interoperability implications.

   The intended status is properly indicated.

(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 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.

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. 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.

   The document received two working group last calls, the second as a result of IPR
   declaration 1781. The second WG last call resulted in the security section being
   improved, but no issues were raised about the IPR declaration.

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 and where OAM interworking is used.

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

Personnel

   The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci ([email-masked]).
   The responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant ([email-masked]).

(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 document and provided detailed technical
  and editorial comments. This were addressed by the authors before progressing
  the draft.

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

  No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has
        received significant review by the WG over a number of years and
        received a number
        of comments during WG last call.

(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 further review required.

(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.

  No specific concerns.

(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.

   Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has indicated that
   they are not aware of any IPR that has not been declared in accordance
   with BCP 78 and 79.

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

  There is one IPR declaration (1781) that was made after the original WG last call.
  The document was given a second WG last call as a result of this. There were no issues
  raised as a result of this.

(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?

    I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
      been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. It has been
      discussed over a period of a number of years, both in face to face IETF meetings
      and on the list. It has also been through two working group last calls with comments
      raised at each.

(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.)

  None indicated.

(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.

      Yes. There is one I-D nits warning related to some pages with too many lines.
      This results in I-D Nits generating an  additional false comments.
      There are also a few spelling or gramatical errors.
       These should be fixed before publication.

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

   There are no relevant formal review criteria.

(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.

  There is a downward normative reference to the published MetroEthernet Forum
  specification MEF16. It is reasonable to require conformance to MEF16 for any
  interworking between PW OAM and MEF16.

(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 document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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.

   There are no IANA actions.

(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.

   There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.