[L2tpext] [Fwd: [draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm] Publication Request + PROTO Questionnaire]
Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 13 November 2008 17:02 UTC
Return-Path: <l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l2tpext-archive-1@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l2tpext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A863A692E; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:02:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2B33A692E for <l2tpext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:02:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 l0IjG+AHLtrq for <l2tpext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1C63A63EB for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:02:06 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mADH26a6002322 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:02:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [64.102.157.170] (dhcp-64-102-157-170.cisco.com [64.102.157.170]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mADH269t006457 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:02:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <491C5D8E.2030806@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:02:06 -0500
From: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Organization: cisco Systems, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080914 Thunderbird/2.0.0.17 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l2tpext mailing list <l2tpext@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-Face: *3w8NvnQ|kS~V{&{U}$?G9U9EJQ8p9)O[1[1F'1i>XIc$5FR!hdAIf5}'Xu-3`^Z']h0J* ccB'fl/XJYR[+,Z+jj`4%06nd'y9[ln&ScJT5S+O18e^
Subject: [L2tpext] [Fwd: [draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm] Publication Request + PROTO Questionnaire]
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/l2tpext>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0156411578=="
Sender: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm] Publication Request + PROTO Questionnaire Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:37:57 -0500 From: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> To: IETF Secretariat <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> CC: l2tpext-ads@tools.ietf.org, l2tpext-chairs@tools.ietf.org Please, publish the ID draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06.txt as Proposed Standard. PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06 Prepared by: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> (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? Yes. Carlos Pignataro will be the WG Document Shepherd for this document. (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 document has been reviewed in the l2tpext WG. Further detailed review was performed by Carlos Pignataro and Ignacio Goyret. Finally, Yaakov Stein reviewed the document as a key non-WG member, active in PWE3, and co-author of most TDM-related RFCs included as References. All review comments have been adequately addressed. There are no concerns about the extent of the reviews. (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, we don't believe there is any need for additional review from other areas. (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. All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed in the revision -06 of the document. To my knowledge, there aren't any outstanding issues or concerns. (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 WGLC. (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 http://www.ietf.org/ID-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? Yes. The document checks idnits without any issues found: <http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06.txt> (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]. The references are properly split into Normative and Informative. All the references are already published RFCs, and there are no downward references. (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 Considerations section is consistent with the body of the documents, and has been enhanced for clarity as part of a WGLC comment. All reservation requests are from <http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters>. There are suggested values only for the "L2TPv3 Pseudowire Types", consistent with the IANA registry. These suggested values are provided for consistency with a corresponding pwe3-parameters number space. (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? There are no sections on this document using any formal language. (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 transport of TDM bit-streams over the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3). It describes extensions of L2TPv3 for the setup and maintenance of structure-agnostic and structure-aware TDM Pseudowires, to transport TDM bit-streams over an IP network. 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? There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. 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? The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during review and last call have been addressed. Yaakov Stein performed a very detailed review during WGLC, with the conclusion that "this ID looks ready for publication" at <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext/current/msg01182.html>. This document defines an application of L2TPv3 to transport another type of traffic, and is consistent with corresponding PWE3 documents. Carlos Pignataro is the WG shepherd for this document. (end) -- --Carlos Pignataro. Escalation RTP - cisco Systems -- --Carlos Pignataro. Escalation RTP - cisco Systems
_______________________________________________ L2tpext mailing list L2tpext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
- [L2tpext] [Fwd: [draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm] Publicat… Carlos Pignataro