Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Fri, 31 October 2008 15:06 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F145D3A6C10 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.874, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t4CnoAZlLhFn for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65FF3A6BDE for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KvvUz-0007jr-M3 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:01:17 +0000
Received: from [216.82.254.243] (helo=mail203.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dbrungard@att.com>) id 1KvvUo-0007ih-7G for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:01:11 +0000
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: dbrungard@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1225465264!17586171!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54]
Received: (qmail 28989 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2008 15:01:05 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-10.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Oct 2008 15:01:05 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9VF13qC021747; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:01:04 -0400
Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.19]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9VF0tej021621; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:00:55 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C93B69.59C36647"
Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:00:01 -0400
Message-ID: <D6CB948F7AFD6F4881D4B4F80C8509AA015D270D@gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Thread-Index: Ack7aVlYnJ+v9I7gRo2fHz8dBYfTdw==
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com>
To: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06 Intended status : Informational > (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 personally reviewed the I-D 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 reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received good discussion on the mailiing list and at IETF meetings. No concerns about the level of review. > (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. The document is sound. No IPR disclosures 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? There were no problems with consensus for this document. In the early stages there were some very strong opinions about the value of this work. Some vendors and operators did not believe that the function would be useful in the networks they build. However, over time, other vendors and operators strongly supported the function, and since it is described as an optional function in equipment and deployment, the working group did not object to this work proceeding. > (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 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? All checks made. > (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]. References split. No downrefs. > (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]. 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? This is an Informational I-D that makes no requestes of IANA. A Null IANA section is included. > (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? No formal language used. > (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. >From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. In the context of GMPLS, this can be seen as setting up control plane state for an LSP that was itself established using management intervention at each node along the path. Also included is the converse process of removing control plane state for an LSP so that the traffic is not disrupted and ownership of the LSP is passed to the management plane. This document sets out the requirements for such procedures within a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. > 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? Nothing of note. > 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? This is a requirements specification, and cannot be implemented. Note that work is already in progress within the CCAMP working group to develop protocol solutions.
- Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS