[CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-03
"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Sat, 12 November 2011 03:44 UTC
Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2D51F0C3D; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:44:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RjJA6KzaATtS; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9791F0C38; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:44:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: db3546@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1321069468!738248!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.3.6; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 11954 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2011 03:44:28 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-14.tower-119.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Nov 2011 03:44:28 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAC3itGp007943; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:44:55 -0500
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9F.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9f.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.71]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAC3is3B007940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:44:54 -0500
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.6.112]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9F.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.71]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:44:26 -0500
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-03
Thread-Index: Acyg7VtsZzyB2Hw9TbGyim0gi+gwHg==
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:44:25 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8085DD2@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: Ep9T GeaY IeI5 Jm3i LLQI LtTl Np72 ORs9 PU/2 Rb+i S4sO W2a+ XvV3 abv7 ePqs gE07; 3; YQBkAHIAaQBhAG4AQABvAGwAZABkAG8AZwAuAGMAbwAuAHUAawA7AGMAYwBhAG0AcABAAGkAZQB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA7AGkAZQBzAGcALQBzAGUAYwByAGUAdABhAHIAeQBAAGkAZQB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {8641E7D9-A15D-4C8B-BFBA-AC73E673D677}; ZABiADMANQA0ADYAQABhAHQAdAAuAGMAbwBtAA==; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:44:18 GMT; UABsAGUAYQBzAGUAIABwAHUAYgBsAGkAcwBoACAAZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AaQBlAHQAZgAtAGMAYwBhAG0AcAAtAHIAZgBjADUANwA4ADcAYgBpAHMALQAwADMA
x-cr-puzzleid: {8641E7D9-A15D-4C8B-BFBA-AC73E673D677}
x-originating-ip: [135.70.37.149]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "iesg-secretary@ietf.org" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-03
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:44:31 -0000
PROTO-write-up for: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-03.txt 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? Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd. She 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? This document has been adequately reviewed. In addition, it was Liaisoned with ITU-T. It was previously published with Experimental Status, some minor updates have been incorporated. (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. 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 very good consensus behind this document. It was moved to Standards track based on significant interest expressed by the working group. (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. (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 okay. (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? The IANA section looks good. (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. The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). This document defines extensions to the OSPFv2 Link State Routing Protocol to meet the requirements for routing in an ASON. 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 stable for quite some time, mainly needing revisions as part of the publication process for Standards Track. 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 implementations, though significant interest was expressed when the working group was polled for interest in moving to standards track.
- [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bi… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A