[L2tpext] Fwd: Request for publication: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-06.txt
Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@lucent.com> Tue, 09 May 2006 01:12 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdGmZ-0007bS-Go; Mon, 08 May 2006 21:12:59 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdGmX-0007ah-Ml for l2tpext@ietf.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 21:12:57 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdFKT-0000Vh-6T for l2tpext@ietf.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 19:39:53 -0400
Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdFBA-0006L0-K0 for l2tpext@ietf.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 19:30:18 -0400
Received: from horh1.emsr.lucent.com (h135-112-138-211.lucent.com [135.112.138.211]) by hoemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k48NUFeo025083 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2006 18:30:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from new-wopr.eng.ascend.com (new-wopr.eng.ascend.com [135.140.53.19]) by horh1.emsr.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k48NUEsC010365 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2006 18:30:14 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from cliff.eng.ascend.com (cliff.eng.ascend.com [135.140.53.169]) by new-wopr.eng.ascend.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id k48NUDo04477 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2006 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from igoyret-t23 (dhcp-135-140-27-162 [135.140.27.162]) by cliff.eng.ascend.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id k48NUDKd011131 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2006 16:30:13 -0700
Message-Id: <200605082330.k48NUDKd011131@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700
To: l2tpext@ietf.org
From: Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 36c793b20164cfe75332aa66ddb21196
Subject: [L2tpext] Fwd: Request for publication: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-06.txt
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/l2tpext>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
FYI. -Ignacio >Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:24:27 -0700 >To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, l2tpext-ads@tools.ietf.org >From: Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@lucent.com> >Subject: Request for publication: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-06.txt >Cc: l2tpext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> > >Hi, >I would like to ask for the ID draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-06.txt >to be published. > >Here are the answers to the PROTO questionnaire for this draft: > > 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet > Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready > to forward to the IESG for publication? Which chair is the WG > Chair Shepherd for this document? > >Yes. Ignacio Goyret will be the WG Chair Shepherd for this document. > > > 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members > and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the > depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? > >The document has been reviewed in the l2tpext WG. There are no concerns >about the extent of the reviews. > > 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a > particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational > complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, > XML, etc.)? > >I believe the document has received sufficient review since its >initial publication in 2001. > > 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that > you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For > example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the > document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for > it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG > and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the > document, detail those concerns in the write-up. > >All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed. >The single comment received during WG LC can be found here: >http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext/current/msg01038.html >which was addressed with a new section in the document. >To my knowledge, there aren't any outstanding concerns from anyone. > > 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 have been no dissenting voices during review and/or LC. > > 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be > separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into > the tracker). > >No. > > 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against > all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). > Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be > thorough. > >Yes. The document checks out without any errors. > > 1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to IDs, where the > IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an > unclear state? The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with > normative references to IDs (will delay the publication until > all such IDs are also ready for RFC publicatioin). If the > normative references are behind, what is the strategy for their > completion? On a related matter, are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in BCP 97, RFC 3967 > RFC 3967 [RFC3967]? Listing these supports the Area Director in > the Last Call downref procedure specified in RFC 3967. > >References are properly split. All the references are to already >published RFCs. > > 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval > announcement includes a write-up section with the following > sections: > > * Technical Summary > >This document describes transport of Ethernet frames over Layer 2 >Tunneling Protocol (L2TPv3). This includes the transport of Ethernet >port to port frames as well as the transport of Ethernet VLAN frames. >The mechanism described in this document can be used in the creation >of Pseudo Wires to transport Ethernet frames over an IP network. > > * Working Group Summary > >The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during >review and last call have been addressed. > > * Protocol Quality > >This is a fairly simple and straight-forward application of L2TPv3 >to transport another type of traffic. > > >Cheers, >-Ignacio Goyret _______________________________________________ L2tpext mailing list L2tpext@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
- [L2tpext] Fwd: Request for publication: draft-iet… Ignacio Goyret