[Pppext] reply: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-05.txt

[[e-mail]]

I have reviewed the draft. It is fine for me!




James Carlson <[e-mail]> 
发件人:  [e-mail]
2011-05-24 04:54

收件人
[e-mail]
抄送

主题
Re: [Pppext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-05.txt






[e-mail] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories. This draft is a work item of the Point-to-Point Protocol 
Extensions Working Group of the IETF.
> 
>                Title           : PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol
>                Author(s)       : James Carlson
>                Filename        : draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-05.txt
>                Pages           : 7
>                Date            : 2011-05-23
> 
>    The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) defines a Link Control Protocol
>    (LCP) and a method for negotiating the use of multi-protocol traffic
>    over point-to-point links.  This document describes PPP support for
>    Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol,
>    allowing direct communication between Routing Bridges (RBridges) via
>    PPP links.

I made a few very minor edits to pass through the id-nits checker.

Document shepherd write-up is attached.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[e-mail]>
  (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? 

                 The document shepherd is James Carlson, also the author 
and WG
                 chair.  The shepherd has reviewed this version of the 
document
                 and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for
                 publication.

  (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 had review from both key WG participants
                 (Bill Simpson, Vern Schryver) and from key participants 
in the
                 TRILL WG (Jon Hudson, Yizhou Li, Don Eastlake).

                 The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth or
                 breadth 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? 

                 The document shepherd believes that all relevant areas 
have
                 reviewed the document and contributed.

  (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. 

                 No specific concerns, and no known IPR.

  (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? 

                 The document has concurrence from the individuals who 
have
                 participated in the discussion.

                 The vast majority of the working group is typically 
silent, so
                 hearing at all from them is unusual, and a positive sign 
for
                 the document.

  (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 threats are known.  The one dissenting issue -- Bill
                 Simpson's concern about IS-IS System ID in a deployment 
with
                 no source of System ID generation -- has been dealt with
                 successfully by creating a new draft that addresses the
                 situation for IS-IS and adding a reference in this 
document.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 

        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? 

                 The document shepherd has put the current text through 
all of
                 those checks, and it satisfies the checker and has no 
known
                 additional criteria to meet.

  (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].

                 Yes, it has references split into normative and 
informative.

                 There's one downward reference, and it's in the 
informative
                 reference list.  This is to Bill Simpson's "Generation of
                 Unique IS-IS System Identifiers" draft.

  (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 present and describes 
the
                 new values introduced by this document.  The registries 
are
                 clearly identified and the allocation procedures are 
noted.

  (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? 

                 No formal languages are present in the draft.

  (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 

                 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) defines a Link Control
                 Protocol (LCP) and a method for negotiating the use of
                 multi-protocol traffic over point-to-point links.  This
                 document describes PPP support for Transparent 
Interconnection
                 of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol, allowing direct
                 communication between Routing Bridges (RBridges) via PPP
                 links.

     Working Group Summary 

                 There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. 
There
                 was some discussion in the working group about IS-IS 
System
                 IDs, and the draft reflects the consensus.

     Document Quality 

                 There is a long list of vendors implementing TRILL, but 
at
                 this point there are none that have announced support for
                 TRILL over PPP.  The PPP extensions described here are
                 trivial, and the overall system implementation issues 
have
                 been discussed in detail with several of the TRILL WG
                 participants.  No significant implementation, deployment, 
or
                 interoperability concerns exist.

                 Significant reviewers include Bill Simpson, Donald 
Eastlake,
                 and Vern Schryver.
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext