[CCAMP] Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04
Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com> Tue, 15 March 2016 16:57 UTC
Return-Path: <huubatwork@gmail.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 11FBC12DAD8 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RoIui1Z26P0Y for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 545DE12D586 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id l124so18794148wmf.1 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZO9P8eGv62oIb/ZB9Jjp+x95lkUfAH8drGqDzYoy2Nk=; b=kTlPbV/lCiQ1A72+GRTiawSmzr74OjAwbDzVgB9Oqkpx86UKlSZ0vEvEMUqB6vxDCN jpkqMTUrALFEHKQ2IjPNdo3R8vWGJotaU2B8Z3XGw24/bvryiZxADehUDAoLuRYnr545 ptTEgZvtqqRAdmfdMxoCzcfQ2U7bzqqQIRnTMTgk6VH8Y/Int1AgebKO3hLvnls9+Gge rT8z7drhx4u8rcfwS0RzlyEhx9rUtRveJY5NaU4lh7PgrgYJUEvT85cV2jNyRWSOiLg9 /Gmf50bjrOp1qTeiZ++cDjSNrwm5V2rBPeDsJWNk6AuyPDazNW6f9xH0V4T76CQ3ZTW3 91Mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from :reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZO9P8eGv62oIb/ZB9Jjp+x95lkUfAH8drGqDzYoy2Nk=; b=fWdq0Rjsf6AIC+jB2hunhVsUg2pD8Rx6mWbpFKS2+f5ALrsIKhK+yKsIFJKYqk4sW1 CZ+pAaUKNmi9mgn8ofTtssjQ5v7lUoZl9rjS/+tnrefKcv2oEzumKJqyQRNjelCUYWy8 E0cN8j6ZZwKQFcURqLWoKedJauYEnTkrT4oDoCVOTg3vOmGPlBrO4Nfam0/ycw6iv0GB PWMt+BnVsx9sAHfT2dzeMrYnaMNB1T+wJzdUvyIv5qsna9EXtRA8M8f1p4iVzDjT+bnF yOFTlsFVk/BA3aRERq5gHx3h8lboDIjIQkjGog6Kr/5Y5RpGSWnd7rtgIKwFZ8POeekf OFrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLK5AoX2jnIHobfdEQH0s7NvMjTqgzo0EuWwcg/0fE3VnN4N3bXQGiihjy0MAceMQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.242.202 with SMTP id ws10mr31432768wjc.3.1458061063774; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from McAsterix.local ([92.109.37.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x203sm21632324wmg.23.2016.03.15.09.57.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <56E83F0D.4070803@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:57:49 +0100
From: Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, ccamp chair <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
References: <566F35D3.3070109@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <566F35D3.3070109@gmail.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <566F35D3.3070109@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/aBTC7fS0deSg-l5as-LMtudwaXY>
Subject: [CCAMP] Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: huubatwork@gmail.com
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:57:47 -0000
This is the document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document. This is appropriate because the document describes an update of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signals as specified in [RFC7139] as defined in [RFC 5226].This track is noted in the document header. (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: This document updates [RFC7139] to allow the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to also support Specification Required policies, as defined in [RFC5226]. Working Group Summary: This document has been reviewed in the CCAMP working group and received comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. There were no problems with consensus for this document. Document Quality: The document is concise and provides proper justification for the update of the OTN Signal Type registry. Personnel: Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director (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 has reviewed the current revision of the document. He 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 chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No disclosures have been made. (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? See (2). There has been an extensive review and there is good consensus on the document. (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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits found. (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 normative and informative references are identified correctly. (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? None such. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. None such. (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 IANA considerations section is the most important part of this document. It is concise and appropriate. However to provide more clarity on the update process I propose to replace the text: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required" by: "Standards Action" or "Specification Required"(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. Guidance for future updates is provided. (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. There are no such sections. ------------ Best regards, Huub.
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-sign… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf… Huub van Helvoort
- [CCAMP] Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf… Huub van Helvoort