Re: [CCAMP] WG LAST CALL - draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt and call for shepherd

["Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Dan, 

  Thank you first for your efforts on shepherding this document. 

  The points that need my reply are listed: 

1) the idnits found by the tool and you: will be rectified in the next version; 

2) Title: will get aligned with other drafts (FWK, LABEL and now OSPF all use Flexi-grid); 

3) Do I need to do anything with this?

"The idnits tool warns about normative references to ITU G.694.1 as a
potential downref."

4) To answer your question: it is primarily suggesting the next available value. But, do I need to do anything with this? 

" In section 5.1 the document does mention that IANA is requested to assign
the same value for "TBD1" and "TBD2" ("SSON FLOWSPEC" & "SSON
SENDER_TSPEC"), and a value of "8" is suggested. It is unclear if this value
is due to any prior implementation, or simply the next available value
(following "OTN-TDM") based on the current sub-registry assignments. "
  
Cheers,
Xian

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel King [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Daniel King
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:06 AM
To: Fatai Zhang; 'Daniele Ceccarelli'
Subject: RE: WG LAST CALL - draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt and call for shepherd

Dear Chairs, 

Please find the document shepherd write-up for:

RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Flexible Grid
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

This document is requested for publication as an Internet Standard, and
noted accordingly in the document header.

>    Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC
>    indicated in the title page header?

The document describes the protocol extensions and procedures for Resource
reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling to support
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) used within a GMPLS-controlled flexi-grid
optical networks. 

> (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:

The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization
Sector (ITU-T) extended its Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a
new dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of
nominal central frequencies, channel spacing's and the concept of "frequency
slot".  In such an environment, a data plane connection is switched based on
allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within the optical spectrum
creating what is known as flexi-grid.

This document reflects recommendations defined by the ITU-T and describes
the requirements, procedures and protocol extensions for RSVP-TE signaling
to set up LSPs in optical networks that support flexi-grid. The I-D using
the label definition documented in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label. 

> Working Group Summary:

The initial RSVP-TE signaling extensions in support of flexible grid
Internet-Draft (I-D) was published in October 2011, after numerous
presentations at CCAMP working group (WG) meetings and list discussions it
has matured over several versions. Key discussion points included:

+ Traffic Parameters
- Its correct use
+ Grid Value
- To determine how to carry the central frequency & slot width in RSVP-TE
+ Refined to make it consistent with flexible grid framework and label
extension I-Ds
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk 
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label

The issues above were discussed during IETF meetings and on the mailing list
and an acceptable (by the CCAMP WG) definitions were established. Overall
the document has received broad support from the CCAMP WG during its life.
No objection to progression of the I-D (via the CCAMP mailing list or
documented in CCAMP WG minutes), and especially at Last Call was recorded.  

> Document Quality:

The work has had contributions from a large group of people from multiple
people both from the ITU-T and IETF.  Additionally, the work has had
external review from the IDEALIST EU project (http://www.ict-idealist.eu/)
that is making multiple inter-operating implementations of a GMPLS control
plane for flexible grid

> Personnel:

+ Daniel King is the document Shepherd
+ Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

Note that Since both the CCAMP WG Chairs (Fatai Zhang &  Daniele Ceccarelli)
and the CCAMP WG Secretary (Oscar Gonzalez de Dios) are involved in the
draft as co-authors, a document shepherd which is not one of the Chairs or
the Secretary was requested.

> (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 (Daniel King) has reviewed the current revision of the
document and believes it is ready for publication.

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

No concerns.

> (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 such content.

> (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 such 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?

The WG chairs contacted all authors and contributors for statements that
they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded and their statements
recorded on the CCAMP mailing list. 

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

One IPR disclosure has been recorded on 4 August, 2015.  

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2650/

> (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 has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus for the
document. See section 2 (above) for more detail.

> (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 threats or discontent has been recorded.

> (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.

After using the idnits tool against the current document, a few minor
issues/comments exist:

(38): Line has weird spacing: '... months   and ...'
(39): Line has weird spacing: '... at any   time...'
(40): Line has weird spacing: '...ference   mate...'
(514): Unexpected reference format: '...[FLEX-LBL]King, D., ...'

Furthermore, I note a typo on line (461) "draft-ietf-cammp-flexi-grid-fwk"
should be changed to "draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk". 

One minor comment from this Shepherd. The document title and file name use
the definition "flexible grid". Associated I-Ds
(draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk & draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label)
use the term "flexi-grid". However, this document does mention in section 1
("Introduction") that ""flexible grids", [are] known as "flexi-grid"". 

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

No such reviews needed.

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

All references correctly identified.

> (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 such normative references exist. 

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

The idnits tool warns about normative references to ITU G.694.1 as a
potential downref. 

> (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.

No issues.

> (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).

The document introduces two new Class Types for existing RSVP objects. If
approved, these will be allocated from the "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" registry using the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class
Types" sub-registry.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml

In section 5.1 the document does mention that IANA is requested to assign
the same value for "TBD1" and "TBD2" ("SSON FLOWSPEC" & "SSON
SENDER_TSPEC"), and a value of "8" is suggested. It is unclear if this value
is due to any prior implementation, or simply the next available value
(following "OTN-TDM") based on the current sub-registry assignments. 

> (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.

No new registry was requested. 

> (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.

No such sections.

BR, Dan. 

From: Daniel King [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Daniel King
Sent: 15 September 2015 16:36
To: 'Fatai Zhang' <[e-mail]>; 'Daniele Ceccarelli'
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: WG LAST CALL -
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt and call for shepherd

Thanks Fatai. I have the token and will provide my write-up. 

BR, Dan. 

From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 15 September 2015 10:52
To: CCAMP ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS) ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: WG LAST CALL -
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt and call for shepherd

Hi all,

The last call is now closed. 

It seems that this draft is pretty good since there are no
comments/questions from the WG during the WG LC. 

We will move forward with the publication process.

To Daniel, thank you very much for willing to shepherd this draft. 




Thanks

Fatai & Daniele





From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fatai Zhang
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 2:03 PM
To: CCAMP ([e-mail])
Subject: [CCAMP] WG LAST CALL -
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt and call for sheperd

Hi all,

This starts a two weeks working group last call on
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt.

The last call will end on Monday September 15th. 

Please send your comments to the CCAMP mailing list. Also comments like "I
have reviewed the draft and believe it's ready for publication" are welcome.

All the IPR declarations from authors and contributors have been collected
and can be found in the history of the document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext/
history/ (except the response from Felipe since it is not recorded in the
List Archive).

PLEASE NOTE
Since both the chairs and the secretary are involved in the draft as
co-authors, so this is a good opportunity to have the WG involved also in
the Post-WG Last call process nominating a document shepherd which is not
one of the chairs or the secretary. Further details on the shepherd duties
can be found in RFC4858 and at
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/document-shepherds.html.

Please volunteer if interested and send a mail to the chairs. 


Thanks

Fatai & Daniele