[CCAMP] Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02

[Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]>]

Document shepherd write-up for

             draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02

(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 the extension
of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Parameters" registry for the OTN signals defined in [RFC4328] and
[RFC7139] with additional signal types mentioned in ITU-T G.Sup43.

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:

The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has defined normative OTN Signal
Types in G.709. These OTN Signal Types are registered by RFC7139.
The ITU-T has also defined non-normative OTN Signal Types in
G.Sup43. This document registers these additional OTN Signal Types.

Working Group Summary:

This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and
received some 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 extension 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 and has found nits, see (11).
After addressing these nits 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 a good 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/ and the
      Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
      this check needs to be thorough.

Fix nits errors:
Security considerations section is not required.

In Abstract
s/[RFC5226]/RFC 5226/

Fix nits warning:
Because G.Sup43 has been approved and published the following
change should be made in section 4.2 (this will also align it
with the reference present in section 1)
OLD:
    [GSUP.43] ITU-T, "Proposed revision of G.sup43 (for agreement)",
              February, 2011.
NEW:
    [G.Sup43] ITU-T, “Transport of IEEE 10GBASE-R in optical
              transport networks (OTN)”, February, 2011.

(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 references are identified correctly.
The Informative Reference has been approved and published.

(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.

(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.

The additional subregistries are identified properly.

(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.