[PWE3] Updated proto statement for draft-ietf-pwe3-packet-pw-03.txt

["Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[e-mail]>]

Please find below an updated document shepherd's write-up for draft-ietf-pwe3-packet-pw-03.txt. This has been updated to reflect the change in intended status of the draft from BCP to Standards Track.

Best regards

Matthew

draft-ietf-pwe3-packet-pw-03.txt

Document Shepard Write-Up


    (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?

Matthew Bocci ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
        Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for
        forwarding to the IESG.


    (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 review. The document has
        received significant review by the WG and received a number
        of comments during WG 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 specific concerns.


    (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.
      Although there were was an alternative proposal for a mechanism to
      support Packet PWs presented at a number of IETFs, that proposal has
      not been adopted by the working group.


    (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.)

       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?


       Yes. There are a couple of minor I-D nits related to a copyright date
       and a missing reference. These should be fixed before publication.
       There are no formal review criteria.

    (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.



    (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 and seems reasonable.


    (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 describes a pseudowire mechanism that is used to
   transport a packet service over an MPLS PSN is the case where the
   client LSR and the server PE are co-resident in the same equipment.
   This pseudowire mechanism may be used to carry all of the required
   layer 2 and layer 3 protocols between the pair of client LSRs.

   This document is a product of the PWE3 working group.

   This document is Standards Track.

Working Group Summary

   This draft presents a number of alternative encapsulations for a generic packet PW
   that were investigated by the authors and discussed in the WG over a period of time
  (these are documented in the appendix), and reaches a conclusion about which one to
   use. However, an alternative approach was also proposed to the PWE3 working group by
   a different set of authors in a separate draft, and progressed over a period
   of a number of IETFs. A consensus call was conducted by the chairs to try to reach
   agreement on how to proceed. This resulted in the Ethernet PW encapsulation
   approach, specified in draft-ietf-pwe3-packet-pw-03, being adopted. WG consensus
   could not be reached on the alternative approach at that time. Since
   this draft documents a new way to use an existing encapsulation, the draft was
   originally progressed as a BCP rather than standards track. However, it was
   subsequently noted in AD review that the document makes IANA requests and therefore
   version 3, which is the subject of this proto write up, has been promoted to a
   standards track draft.

Document Quality

   The draft uses an existing Ethernet PW type that is widely deployed. As
   well as being used for interconnecting Ethernet attachment circuits, there are
   implementations that directly terminate the Ethernet PW on an IP interface e.g.
   on a VRF, which represents a subset of the proposal in the draft. However, direct
   termination on an LSR, as shown in the draft, is not known to be widely implemented/
   deployed yet, although such as model has been requested by service providers.

   There are no further concerns with document quality.

   The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review.