[L2tpext] draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions - publish request + proto
Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 23 April 2009 17:49 UTC
Return-Path: <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 780703A6DB7; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 xqJpJMz6U8iA; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565493A6D8F; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (h135-1-218-53.lucent.com [135.1.218.53]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id n3NHnphk006598; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:50:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from cliff.eng.ascend.com (cliff.eng.ascend.com [135.140.53.169]) by ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (8.13.8/emsr) with ESMTP id n3NHnojc028053; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:49:50 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from igoyret-c1.alcatel-lucent.com (dhcp-135-140-27-183 [135.140.27.183]) by cliff.eng.ascend.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3NHno63003789; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:49:50 -0700
Message-Id: <200904231749.n3NHno63003789@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:49:07 -0700
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
From: Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
Cc: l2tpext-ads@tools.ietf.org, Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>, l2tpext@ietf.org, l2tpext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Neil McGill <nmcgill@cisco.com>
Subject: [L2tpext] draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions - publish request + proto
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/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:49:41 -0000
Please, publish the ID draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04.txt as Proposed Standard. Here are the answers to the PROTO questionnaire for this document: (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. Ignacio Goyret 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 and the pwe3 WG (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext/current/msg01202.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10354.html). Further detailed review was performed by Ignacio Goyret. 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? We don't believe there is any need for additional review from other areas since the document extends a parameter that only affects L2TP version 3. (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? All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed. To my knowledge, there aren't any outstanding issues. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? To my knowledge, 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? There have been no dissenting voices during review and/or WGLC. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The document satisfies all ID nits. Note: The idnits tool mentions an "unresolved reference" because the string "[PSN]" is used in a figure. This will be resolved during AUTH48. (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 [<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3967>RFC3967]? References have been split into normative and informative. All normative references are already published RFCs. Some of the informative references are drafts. This draft is referenced (informative) by draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-10.txt using its old name (draft-nmcgill-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions). The authors have been contacted to update the reference on their next revision. (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? Yes. (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. * Technical Summary This document defines additional Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) bit values to be used within the "Circuit Status" Attribute Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for circuits and pseudowires. It also generalizes the "Active" bit and deprecates the use of the "New" bit in the "Circuit Status" AVP, updating RFC3931, RFC4349, RFC4454, RFC4591, and RFC4719. * Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. * Document Quality The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during review and last call have been addressed. Ignacio Goyret is the WG shepherd for this document. ------------------------------------------- Cheers, -Ignacio Goyret l2tpext WG chair
- [L2tpext] draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-exten… Ignacio Goyret