[CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-09.txt
"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com> Thu, 31 December 2009 21:24 UTC
Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F363A688F; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 HJEV1cWGZ7ok; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444E73A68E5; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:44 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: db3546@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1262294662!23451765!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146]
Received: (qmail 15793 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2009 21:24:23 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-7.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Dec 2009 21:24:23 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBVLOIjR016957; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:24:18 -0500
Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.19]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBVLOE4k016942; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:24:14 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
x-cr-puzzleid: {37B077DF-967C-40E0-8617-94089D4759CA}
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: DHA6 GQoV GZbQ GoCn LFAt P9z/ R4q5 Uf1S VFZr WXWz WfDN Z9Cw aLsi bRb/ b/43 coAy; 3; YQBkAHIAaQBhAG4ALgBmAGEAcgByAGUAbABAAGgAdQBhAHcAZQBpAC4AYwBvAG0AOwBjAGMAYQBtAHAAQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcAOwBpAGUAcwBnAC0AcwBlAGMAcgBlAHQAYQByAHkAQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcA; Sosha1_v1; 7; {37B077DF-967C-40E0-8617-94089D4759CA}; ZABiADMANQA0ADYAQABhAHQAdAAuAGMAbwBtAA==; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:24:10 GMT; UABsAGUAYQBzAGUAIABwAHUAYgBsAGkAcwBoACAAZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AaQBlAHQAZgAtAGMAYwBhAG0AcAAtAGUAdABoAGUAcgBuAGUAdAAtAHQAcgBhAGYAZgBpAGMALQBwAGEAcgBhAG0AZQB0AGUAcgBzAC0AMAA5AC4AdAB4AHQA
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:24:10 -0500
Message-ID: <D6CB948F7AFD6F4881D4B4F80C8509AA05336B49@gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-09.txt
Thread-Index: AcqKX5esYn1UKlNxTVWGsEjU8E+yaA==
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-09.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 31 Dec 2009 21:24:45 -0000
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic parameters-09.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. No IPR disclosures have been 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? 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. A verbose check error on lines being too long. (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 document describes the support of Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Traffic Parameters as described in MEF10.1 when using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling. 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.
- [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)