[PWE3] Publication request for draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03
"Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com> Sat, 03 March 2012 18:33 UTC
Return-Path: <amalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951B421F86B5; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:33:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mdryaycb6Txb; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A971321F86B3; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wicr5 with SMTP id r5so848304wic.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:32:57 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of amalis@gmail.com designates 10.180.79.229 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.79.229;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of amalis@gmail.com designates 10.180.79.229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=amalis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=amalis@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.79.229]) by 10.180.79.229 with SMTP id m5mr5229522wix.6.1330799577951 (num_hops = 1); Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:32:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=sgVMDnZADC2Fn2qNdEvC3A/P+rgst9R8f96hP7VJBXE=; b=J9b8lBxhNF91HBnOXZmHxYPIC5ItW0T8C6Ks6zjtxYbgkwsOHoyBArEj2oDIUZbprZ o10kgARVw9yc9oU8ZYr2UoKu2Cx30lhtxh+dVqXDq6vqgwh46hfqx1fUioBA8EpY6yml XZSyIyn7GuyVuO/TN8zg53Hjeh/hck031s0bIY1ds8nKmOLiVoLf48VRZ8sXeFc72KdE 1wylZKGkBPM1S21Q90HYPaR2W42ivYqWRGv0ECOizavN2tcDjCVxSFstZZUo5G/f3/FF DdiJ4n8JccbwirCE1UsXyIKYgtS8DKxDqRQ/SkZz5Vq7Wu6LWt6VlClBWGwhwZ/yM0h3 o6Jw==
Received: by 10.180.79.229 with SMTP id m5mr4137364wix.6.1330799577851; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:32:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.106.1 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:32:37 -0800 (PST)
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:32:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK+d4xuffTxfOg3yj5oZq3n=-Ex4c_+Pwqov3uQ-2gX+gFeKhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d041826581ae71a04ba5aec28"
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: [PWE3] Publication request for draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:33:00 -0000
The PWE3 working group requests the publication of draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03 as a Proposed Standard RFC. The document writeup is attached below. Thanks, Andy ------------- Document Writeup for draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03 As required by RFC 4858 </rfc/rfc4858.txt>, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? Proposed Standard (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 An extension (RFC5918) to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) (RFC5036) defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is desired to request all label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element. However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be individually defined for each type of FEC element. RFC4447 defines the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC Element", but does not specify the Typed Wildcard format for these elements. This document specifies the format of the Typed Wildcard FEC Element for the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC Element". The procedures for Typed Wildcard processing for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements are same as described in RFC5918 for any typed wildcard FEC Element type. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was solid consensus in the working group regarding this draft, no controversy or anything rough. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? At least one implementation is in progress, but has not yet been deployed. There may be additional vendors with plans to implement. The draft received a good WG last call, which resulted in comments and a new revision. No particular expert review was necessary. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Andrew Malis and Stewart Bryant respectively. (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. The document has been reviewed by the shepherd for quality and completeness, and has also completed working group last call. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. No. (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. None. (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. The authors have confirmed that they not aware of any IPR on the draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (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? The draft has solid WG consensus. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (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. There are no nits according to the checker (I ran it myself). (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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. (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. None. (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. N/A (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). There are no IANA actions required. (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. N/A (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. N/A
- [PWE3] Publication request for draft-ietf-pwe3-pw… Andrew G. Malis