[CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07
"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Thu, 22 September 2011 20:19 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 8268D11E80A2; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
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 eM74vMsnA9x9; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC6F11E80A1; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Env-Sender: db3546@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1316722916!40634605!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.3.6; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 4723 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2011 20:21:57 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-8.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Sep 2011 20:21:57 -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 p8MKMNat003706; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:22:23 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9b.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.72]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8MKMMVW003698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:22:22 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.6.215]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.72]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:21:55 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "iesg-secretary@ietf.org" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07
Thread-Index: Acx5ZT+afLGnWVBjQj+LLf/iQl7YwQ==
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:21:55 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C804C1B0@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.231]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07
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: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:19:27 -0000
PROTO-write-up for: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07.txt 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 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? Yes. No concerns. The WG Last Call was cc'd with the PCE WG. Additionally, liaisons were exchanged with SG15 on data plane aspects. (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 or additional review needed. (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. (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 solid consensus behind this document. (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. No issues identified by idnits. No other reviews are required. (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 good. (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? Not applicable. (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 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 document provides a framework for applying GMPLS protocols and the PCE architecture to support Impairment Aware Routing and Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA) in wavelength switched optical networks. This document does not define optical data plane aspects; impairment parameters, measurement of, or assessment and qualification of a route, but rather it describes the architectural and information components for protocol solutions. 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. The document is considered to be both stable and complete. 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 document is informational.
- [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impa… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A