Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <[e-mail]>]

Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt
 
Please progress this I-D in parallel with
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-06.txt and
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-05.txt

Here is the Document Shepherd write-up.

 
   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
           Deborah Brungard ([e-mail])
 
           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?
          Yes
 
   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?
          Yes
          Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?
          No concerns.
 
   (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 concerns.
 
   (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.
          No concerns.
          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.
          None have 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?
          WG agrees.
 
   (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.)
          No.
 
   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html
<http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html>  and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/> ).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
          Satisfies. One reference comment (see 1.h).
          Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to,
such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
          Yes.
 
   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?
          Yes.
          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?
          One reference to draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching, which should
be progressed
          with this one to ensure the RFC Ed can sort out.
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching
          has finished WG Last Call and it is Standards Track.
          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].
          No.
 
   (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 [RFC2434].
          Yes to all above.
          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?
          None required.
 
   (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?
          Not applicable.
 
   (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 describes procedures and protocol extensions for the
use of Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
signaling in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) packet networks and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) packet and
non-packet networks to support the establishment and maintenance of
Label Switched Paths that cross domain boundaries.
 
Working Group Summary
The Working Group had consensus on this document.
 
Document Quality
This document has been implemented.
 
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Deborah Brungard
Who is the Responsible Area Director(s)? Ross Callon, David Ward.
Is an IANA expert needed? No.