Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-10.txt Pub request + proto

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:26:59 +0000

Please publish

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-10.txt

Stewart

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

Stewart Bryant is the WG Chair responsible for this WG draft.

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

This document has been fully reviewed by the PWE3 WG. It would
be useful if the draft was specifically drawn to the attention
of the L2TPext WG during IETF Last Call.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

We have no concerns.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

We have no 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?

There is firm consenus for the design described in this document.

   1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

Yes, it is correctly split into normative and non-normative references.
All normative references are either RFCs, or in the RFC-Editor
queue.

   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

This document defines a generalized method of performing
fragmentation for use by Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3)
protocols and services.

        *    Working Group Summary

The PWE3 WG have thoroughly reviewed this design.

        *    Protocol Quality

This is a simple design using proven techniques.

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