[PWE3] Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-14.txt

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

draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-14.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])
        Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for
         forwading 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
        received a number of comments during WG last call and been widely
        reviewed and discussed in the working group over a long period of
        time.



    (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 aprticipants. It
      has been devloped over a long period in the WG.

    (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?


       The document passes ID nits.
       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.



    (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, is consistent with the rest of the
      document, and with the style of the IANA registries that it requests
      allocations from. There are several requests for allocations from the MPLS
     PW Type registry and for PW Interface Parameters. It does not request any
     new registries or new processes for allocations from registries.


    (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

   A Fibre Channel pseudowire (PW) is used to carry Fibre Channel
   traffic over an MPLS network. This enables service providers to take
   advantage of the reliable transport of MPLS-TE/MPLS-TP to offer
   "emulated" Fibre Channel services. This document specifies the
   encapsulation of Fibre Channel traffic within a pseudowire. It also
   specifies the common procedures for using a PW to provide a Fibre
   Channel service.

   This document is a product of the PWE3 working group.

   This document is STANDARDS TRACK.

Working Group Summary
   This draft originated as draft-roth-pwe3-fc-encap-01 in 2005, which
   contained a basic specification for the transport of FC over MPLS
   using PWs. Subsequently, there was significant debate about the
   congestion control and QoS implications of FC, which requires a
   reliable underlying transport. The document was reviewed by the
   transport area resulting in the development of a TCP-friendly
   congestion control protocol. However, this protocol was felt to
   add significant complexity, and was removed from the draft and instead
   the applicability of FC PWs limited to controlled MPLS / MPLS-TP
   networks.


Document Quality
There are no concerns about protocol quality.


Personnel
  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

 Matthew Bocci ([e-mail])

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
 Stewart Bryant