Return-Path: 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 B98E928C169; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:14:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.326, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY=1.263, 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 UUAi14MtzHIo; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:14:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61E928C173; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p0HHGafC030026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:16:37 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.38]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:16:36 +0100 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: Stewart Bryant Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:16:31 +0100 Thread-Topic: Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-14.txt Thread-Index: Acu2aks/ZNeojdZxT46qRAIsdXErZw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C95A29EE7713matthewboccialcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.84 Cc: The IESG , "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: [PWE3] Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-14.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:14:27 -0000 --_000_C95A29EE7713matthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com) 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 o= f 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 (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com) Who is the Responsible Area Director? Stewart Bryant --_000_C95A29EE7713matthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-= encap-14.txt

Document Shepard Write-Up
<= br>

    (1.a) Who is the Document S= hepherd for this document? Has the 
     &nbs= p;    Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the&n= bsp;
          document and, in par= ticular, does he or she believe this 
     &n= bsp;    version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publicati= on? 

Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com)
        Yes, I have reviewed the document= and I believe it is ready for =0B        
&n= bsp;        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&n= bsp;
          any concerns about t= he depth or breadth of the reviews that 
    =      have been performed? 

&n= bsp;       Yes, the document has received adequate revi= ew. The document =0B        
   &nb= sp;    received a number of comments during WG last call and been= widely
        reviewed and discussed i= n the working group over a long period of
     &nb= sp;  time.
        

<= /div>

    (1.c) Does the Document Shepher= d have concerns that the document 
      = ;    needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,&= nbsp;
          e.g., security, ope= rational complexity, someone familiar with 
   &nb= sp;      AAA, internationalization or XML? 
<= br>
       No.


<= /div>
    (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any spec= ific concerns or 
          is= sues 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 <= /div>
          has concerns whether ther= e really is a need for it. In any 
      = ;    event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicate= d 
          that it still wis= hes to advance the document, detail those 
   &nbs= p;      concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this= document 
          been file= d? If so, please include a reference to the 
   &n= bsp;      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and con= clusion on 
          this iss= ue. 

       No specific c= oncerns. 


    (= 1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
          represent the strong concurre= nce of a few individuals, with 
       &= nbsp;  others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and&n= bsp;
          agree with it? =

      I am comfortable that t= he document represents WG consensus and has=0B      
     been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG ap= rticipants. It 
      has been devloped = over a long period in the WG. 

   &= nbsp;(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme&n= bsp;
          discontent? If so, p= lease summarise the areas of conflict in 
    = ;      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Direc= tor. (It 
          should be = in a separate email because this questionnaire is 
 &nb= sp;        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

       None indicated.

<= /div>

    (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd= personally verified that the 
       &n= bsp;  document satisfies all ID nits? (See 
  = ;        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and = ;
          http://tools.ietf.org/t= ools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are 
     &= nbsp;    not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the doc= ument 
          met all forma= l review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
  =        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? <= /div>


       The docu= ment passes ID nits.
       This document is = not subject to MIB doctor or other reviews. 

=     (1.h) Has the document split its references into normati= ve and 
          informative?= Are there normative references to documents that 
 &nb= sp;        are not ready for advancement or are otherwi= se in an unclear 
          st= ate? If such normative references exist, what is the 
 =          strategy for their completion? Are there = normative references 
         &nbs= p;that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
          so, list these downward referenc= es to support the Area 
         &n= bsp;Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 

      Yes, the references are split app= ropriately. 

      
=

    (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd veri= fied that the document IANA 
       &nbs= p;  consideration section exists and is consistent with the body =
          of the document? If the = document specifies protocol 
       &nbs= p;  extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
          registries? Are the IANA r= egistries clearly identified? If 
      =    the document creates a new registry, does it define the =
          proposed initial content= s of the registry and an allocation 
     &nb= sp;    procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a = ;
          reasonable name for the= new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
     &n= bsp;    document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd&= nbsp;
          conferred with the = Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
   &nb= sp;      can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evalu= ation? 

      The IANA co= nsiderations section exists, is consistent with the rest of the 
=
      document, and with the style of the IANA reg= istries that it requests
      allocations fr= om. 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 tha= t sections of the 
          d= ocument that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
=           code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, e= tc., validate correctly in 
        = ;  an automated checker? 

   &= nbsp;  There are no sections that use a formal language.

    (1.k) The IESG approval annou= ncement includes a Document 
       &nbs= p;  Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document 
<= div>          Announcement Write-Up? Recent e= xamples can be found in the
         &nb= sp;"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval 
<= div>          announcement contains the follo= wing sections: 

Technical Summary
<= br>
   A Fibre Channel pseudowire (PW) is used to carry= Fibre Channel
   traffic over an MPLS network. This en= ables service providers to take
   advantage of the rel= iable transport of MPLS-TE/MPLS-TP to offer
   "emulate= d" Fibre Channel services. This document specifies the
 &nbs= p; encapsulation of Fibre Channel traffic within a pseudowire. It also
   specifies the common procedures for using a PW to provid= e 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 
&= nbsp;  contained a basic specification for the transport of FC over MP= LS
   using PWs. Subsequently, there was significant de= bate about the
   congestion control and QoS implicatio= ns of FC, which requires a 
   reliable underlying= transport. The document was reviewed by the 
   t= ransport area resulting in the development of a TCP-friendly
&nbs= p;  congestion control protocol. However, this protocol was felt to&nb= sp;
   add significant complexity, and was removed from= the draft and instead
   the applicability of FC PWs l= imited to controlled MPLS / MPLS-TP
   networks.
<= div> 

Document Quality
There are no= concerns about protocol quality. 


=
Personnel
  Who is the Document Shepherd for this = document?

 Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcat= el-lucent.com)

Who is the Responsible Area Directo= r?
 Stewart Bryant --_000_C95A29EE7713matthewboccialcatellucentcom_--