[CCAMP] Please publish: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Adrian,
	Here is the PROTO write up for 
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-09.txt.

Lou (and Deborah)
==========================================================================
PROTO-write-up for:	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels
Intended status: 	Proposed Standard

   (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?

Lou Berger is the Document Shepherd.
He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to
the IESG for publication.

   (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 been extensively reviewed and the Shepherd
believes all issues have been addressed.

   (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 or additional review needed.

   (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 concerns or issues.  No IPR found in the datatracker.

   (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 strong consensus behind this document.

   (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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist
         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 is one instance of a line too long, this can be fixed as
part of the publication process.  No other reviews are required.

   (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].

Split looks good.

   (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?

No IANA implications.

   (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?

Yes, no automated checks needed.

   (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
         Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
         and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
         an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
         or introduction.

This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) signaling.  [RFC3471] defined that a wavelength label
(section 3.2.1.1) "only has significance between two neighbors" and
global wavelength semantics is not considered. In order to facilitate
interoperability in a network composed of lambda switch-capable
equipment, this document defines a standard lambda label format, which
is compliant with both [G.694.1](DWDM-grid) and [G.694.2](CWDM-grid).

      Working Group Summary
         Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
         example, was there controversy about particular points or
         were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
         rough?

This document received much attention and discussion in its early
revisions.  The document has been largely stable for quite some time,
mainly needing revisions as part of the publication process.

      Document Quality
         Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
         significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
         implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
         merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
         e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
         conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
         there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
         what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
         review, on what date was the request posted?

There have been no public statements related to intent to implement, but
the portions of the extensions are now being used as part of the GMPLS
tool set and are expected to implemented (at least) in those contexts.