[CCAMP] Please publish: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-04

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Proto-write-up for:	draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-04
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 believe this version is ready for
publication at the intended status.

>(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?

The document has received adequate review and discussion.  It has been
revised to be consistent with WG opinion and other related activities in
the IETF.

>(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.

>(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?

No.

> 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 IPR disclosures were found.

>(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?

Consensus appears to be good.

>(1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>       discontent?  If so, please summarize 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 threats. No discontent.

>(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>       document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
>       http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?  If the document
>       does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
>       the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

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?

No.

> If such normative references exist, what is the
>       strategy for their completion?

N/A.

> 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 downward references.

>
>(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
>       Considerations 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].  If the
>       document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
>       Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
>       the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The IANA section looks.

>(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 memo describes an extension to Generalized Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching signaling that enables the transfer of connection
   ownership between the Management and the Control Planes.  Such a
   transfer is referred to as a Handover.  This document defines all
   Handover related procedures.  This includes the handling of failure
   conditions and subsequent rversion to original state.  A basic
   premise of the extension is that the handover procedures must never
   impact an already established data plane.

>       Working Group Summary
>          Was there anything in the 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 adequate attention and discussion in its early
revisions.  The document has been laregly 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
it is expected that some/all of the primary Authors plan to implement.

>       Personnel
>          Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Lou Berger.
> Who is the
>          Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel

> If the document requires IANA
>          experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
>          in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
>