Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-05.txt

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

Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-05.txt

Please progress this I-D in parallel with 

draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-06.txt and 

draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.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 has 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.

Yes.

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?

All OK.

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 specifies a per-domain path computation technique for

establishing inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Multiprotocol

Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Label Switched

Paths (LSPs). In this document a domain refers to a collection of

network elements within a common sphere of address management or path

computational responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous

Systems.

Per-domain computation applies where the full path of an inter-domain

TE LSP cannot be or is not determined at the ingress node of the TE

LSP, and is not signaled across domain boundaries. This is most

likely to arise owing to TE visibility limitations. The signaling

message indicates the destination and nodes up to the next domain

boundary. It may also indicate further domain boundaries or domain

identifiers. The path through each domain, possibly including the

choice of exit point from the domain, must be determined within

the domain.

Working Group Summary

The Working Group had consensus on this document.

Document Quality

The document has been implemented and deployed.

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.