[Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03
"Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> Sat, 21 March 2015 17:10 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 8B7451A8903 for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:10:49 -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 nPx1hZqyTR3u for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:10:45 -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 D285F1A894E for <pals@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id BB47C604EA93C for <pals@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:10:37 +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 t2LHAf0s025005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <pals@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:10:41 +0100
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; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:10:41 +0100
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-vccv-for-gal-03
Thread-Index: AQHQY/n1yogPO0iugUezdPqr74iYYw==
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:10:40 +0000
Message-ID: <D133568D.75CC5%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/14.4.8.150116
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D133568D75CC5matthewboccialcatellucentcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/qVx3w4Io1LNsgfebydogbDcTc2c>
Subject: [Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:10:49 -0000
Working Group, I am the document shepherd for draft-ietf-pals-pals-vccv-for-gal-03. Please find the document shepherd writeup below. Regards Matthew ====== Document Shepherd Write-Up draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03.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 the usage of the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) in a new context (a pseudowire signaled using tLDP) and also makes additions to the VCCV channel type negotiation procedures defined in RFC5885 for the GAL, along with a new code point from the MPLS VCCV CC Types IANA registry, which requires IETF consensus. (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 specifies a new Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) (RFC5085) control channel type for use with pseudowires (PW) carried over an MPLS network. This new channel type uses the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) (RFC5586) to distinguish VCCV packets from packets carrying user data. Although the use of the GAL on PWs in MPLS-TP is defined in RFC6423, this draft specifies the necessary extensions to VCCV to support the GAL on PWs setup and maintained using targeted LDP (tLDP). 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 debate in PWE3 was whether earlier control channel types (e.g. Router Alert) that do not use the control word should be deprecated in favour of the use of the GAL. This was resolved through the implementation survey described in RFC7079, which showed that there were significant deployments of both pseudowires using Router Alert or TTL expiry as the VCCV Channel Type. This draft therefore does not deprecate other channel types, but rather provides a clear order of precedence when more than one channel type is supported. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations of the GAL for MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs. Many implementations of the LDP extensions for negotiating the use of the existing VCCV control channel on a targeted LDP signalled PW are also known to exist. The document has also been widely reviewed by the original authors of and contributors to VCCV (RFC5085). 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. There are a couple of outstanding minor typographical errors that I have made the authors aware of that I believe can be fixed at the next revision. 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 received a number of WG last call comments in PALS which were addressed by the authors. (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 are no IPR declarations against this draft. (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 WG 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. Note that although the draft does add a channel type to VCCV, defined in RFC5085, it does not deprecate or otherwise change the status of existing channel types defined in RFC5085. (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 two IANA requests, one for a new channel type code point and one for a new LDP status code. The procedures for their use are specified in the body of the document. (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)
- Re: [Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ie… Andrew G. Malis