[Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt
"Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 04 August 2015 13:58 UTC
Return-Path: <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E911ACED2 for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AeEJTXvdoAYE for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CF501B3116 for <pals@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id A638746849EEF; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:54:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t74Dsjhi018497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:54:46 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.213]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:54:45 +0200
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQzr0eTu1VbJ7vmkGrgIeWdhePug==
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:54:45 +0000
Message-ID: <D1E682A4.7F46B%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.3.150624
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1E682A47F46Bmatthewboccialcatellucentcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/2l-bOWjcbfpY6LTuH5I7bFb6Q2I>
Cc: "pals-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pals-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:58:22 -0000
Document Shepherd Write-Up draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt (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? Standards Track. This is appropriate since the draft defines new procedures for supporting pseudowire redundancy for multi-segment pseudowires at a switching provider edge (S-PE). The status is indicated in the draft header on the first page. (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: This document describes Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) protection scenarios in which the pseudowire redundancy is provided on the Switching-PE (S-PE). Operations of the S-PEs which provide PW redundancy are specified in this document. Signaling of the preferential forwarding status as defined in [RFC 6870] is reused. This document does not require any change to the T-PEs of MS-PW. Working Group Summary: There was nothing particularly unusual in the progress of the draft. The document originated in the PWE3 working group and moved to the PALS working group when PWE3 was concluded in November 2014. The primary discussion in PWE3 was around clarification of the new procedures at the S-PE. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations of PW redundancy, based on RFC6718 and RFC6870. This document reuses the procedures in those RFCs in the context of an S-PE. The document has also been widely reviewed by the original authors and contributors to those RFCs. I do not have any concerns with the quality of the document. Personnel: The Document Shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com) The Responsible Area Director is Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) (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. I have reviewed the document several times during its development. The document is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has been reviewed many times by the PWE3 and PALs WGs. (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. There are no parts of the draft that require further review or the help of a MIB doctor. (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. I have no specific 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? An IPR poll was conducted in the PALs list. Each author responded that they were not aware of any relevant IPR. There were no other responses. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There is one IPR declaration (1911) raised in November 2012 against an early version of the draft. There was no discussion in the WG related to this. (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? I believe the draft represents working group consensus. The document has been reviewed many times by the PWE3 and PALs WGs and received a number of WG last call comments in PALS which were addressed by the authors. There was considerable support shown for the draft during WG last call. (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.) None indicated. (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. The document passes ID Nits. There are no relevant warnings. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document does not require any further formal review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. The references section is split into Normative and Informative sections. These are appropriate. (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? No. All normative references are to published RFCs. (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. There are no downward normative references. (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. This document does not make any changes to the status of existing RFCs. (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 consistent with the body of the document. There are no IANA requests, since this document simply reuses an existing code point (the PW Preferential Forwarding Status Bit). (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. There are no new IANA registries. (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 sections written in a formal language that would require further checks.
- [Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-p… Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)