[CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-04.txt

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

Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-04.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 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?

The I-D has had a good level of discussion and review. Several liaisons
were exchanged with IEEE, ITU-T, and MEF during CCAMP's Ethernet work to
ensure compatibility and cooperation between the SDOs.

(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. Two IPR disclosures have been filed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1195/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1174/
No concerns have been raised.

  
(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 consensus is solid.
  
(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.
  
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/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].

One reference to a document in the process of publication.
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 [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?
 
No formal language is 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.

This specification is complementary to the GMPLS Ethernet Label
Switching
Architecture and Framework [RFC5828] and describes the technology
specific
aspects of GMPLS control for Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic
Engineering (PBB-TE)
[IEEE 802.1Qay]. The necessary GMPLS extensions and mechanisms are
described to
establish Ethernet PBB-TE point to point (P2P) and point to multipoint
(P2MP)
connections. This document supports, but does not modify, the standard
IEEE
data plane.


     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?

No.
 
     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 are no known implementations, but it is expected that several
vendors plan to implement.