[PWE3] Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-14.txt
"Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com> Mon, 11 October 2010 20:03 UTC
Return-Path: <amalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0FA3A6B2B; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 dqQkE13eNjgL; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021C73A6B6A; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so1300197ewy.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=EyUkOuHxDu8Abkc8Rxalc/JL3viK0MDHb5Uhv4CMwj8=; b=mi9QcExPLKkfvhMxpieLmCejd3GILsPE2u+lC4TFMF8/nNacjyUt8d+3onNEIUmqft jLu90oJNYpboUAilBRlxKDAodwxkXcpqIHxhCC1FWTSquTqw9dkLhPGzfCNDYF0m/ztX zj1k9Zyy90oXr2OHQlRE3dXMYo9ThIF23/pfI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=jqBZiJIuyC4zGx8b8Uwgpp65y9j2l3Pk6n3pTKlXeS1iG0iAHVwfgCefcOP2Fqb98B 8fHMaiLIRarmm8MCQWRl/G7AXLi5ba97z3q4TO93kDuHJbezVdnURKcrdr9DVI0ZuuCn lgF69HRe2lzBHaUSPRIbgpVIVgel9kPnVVmAY=
Received: by 10.14.47.78 with SMTP id s54mr3591640eeb.21.1286827462914; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.127.68 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:04:02 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1QwznvikbHPMOpgRD4JoRaw0iEqP7EN0hdbVn@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, pwe3@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba539f3cd0769804925cdd7f"
Subject: [PWE3] Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-14.txt
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:03:15 -0000
Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-14.txt (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? Andrew Malis, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe 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? Yes, the document has received adequate discussion and review. The document went through two last calls in the PWE3 working group, the second to review changes made from the first last call, and no comments were received on the second last call. (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? No. (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 concerns or issues. (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? I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) None indicated. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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 id-nits service on the tools site is broken as I write this, so I'm unable to personally test for id-nits. However, the draft was uploaded successfully by the author, so it must have passed id-nits at that time. This document is not subject to MIB doctor or other reviews. (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, the references are split appropriately. All of the normative references are to published RFCs and ITU-T recommendations, with no downrefs. (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 exists. It does not request any IANA actions. (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 that use a formal language. (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 This document specifies the mapping and notification of defect states between a pseudowire (PW) and the Attachment Circuits (ACs) of the end-to-end emulated service. It standardizes the behavior of Provider Edges (PEs) with respect to PW and AC defects. It addresses ATM, Frame Relay, TDM, and SONET/SDH PW services, carried over MPLS, MPLS/IP and L2TPV3/IP Packet Switched Networks (PSNs). This document is a product of the PWE3 working group. This document is intended for the standards track. Working Group Summary One of the work items in the PWE3 Working Group Charter is to "Specify Operations and Management (OAM) mechanisms for all PW types, suitable for operation over both IP/L2TPv3 and MPLS PSNs, and capable of providing the necessary interworking with the OAM mechanisms of the emulated service." This document addresses this work item for ATM, Frame Relay, TDM, and SONET/SDH pseudowires. A separate document will address Ethernet pseudowires. Document Quality There are no concerns about document quality. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Andrew Malis, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com Who is the Responsible Area Director? Stewart Bryant
- [PWE3] Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg… Andrew G. Malis