Re: [Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Mon, 23 March 2015 23:59 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.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 435AF1A6FF2 for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 22yVHfLFXyEc for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0D4C1A6F5D for <pals@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgez102 with SMTP id z102so82672892qge.3 for <pals@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=O0XKTHzH1RKTcwCFBOEvLdxavM86Dh5pbEawBW7Cf5s=; b=Cbdsp/SoqXXQ3V+EhvZnAfo1LU3yJjyqF2hYJr2gw8O8BRUuc9JMVHstZL7NqJxtgN LelbtS0RmjG38SgXoA9Lb32gxITdQzmfUK4K5RUdgTV3MAQil+V+D/OG7RIZQ7z4VZVm +6miNNhWX9SbnZy+8vUu/IIiKb3tDjkkVIZAfppVc0eRbF1jL8rdJaWHktzNTHvqPLsJ 2qFfmgsK5vZs/ALIehFhxPH5cNiU7mzjqqlNWk9+KKzeIdKYYYzd1f4tv47J972Zij1r mLpkJA3AoNNwKeEegrz0iCoO+54cYEmNKsU7hKGkb3IsHO3GjXTLbiuf5W+nn6Er3vL6 wl0Q==
X-Received: by 10.140.235.20 with SMTP id g20mr2433733qhc.32.1427155160019; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.104.170 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D133568D.75CC5%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <D133568D.75CC5%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:58:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0XUEcs_qsUqov2Q413BUSQ1mG3gVetr2sDCArecwmRgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135cffc5a37a90511fd740b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/xWgvXRDiwAtbLR0svOyaAndeo_E>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>, "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:59:25 -0000
Matthew, Many thanks for the writeup. PALS, The draft was just submitted to the IESG for publication. Cheers, Andy On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) < matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > 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 mailing list > Pals@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals > >
- [Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-p… Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [Pals] Document shepherd writeup for draft-ie… Andrew G. Malis