[PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-fcs-retention-04.txt - Pub request and proto
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Mon, 12 December 2005 19:56 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eltmu-0006ll-Tt; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:56:44 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eltmt-0006kK-Po for pwe3@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:56:43 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14688; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:55:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EltnO-0002yE-Vz; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:57:15 -0500
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2005 20:56:11 +0100
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBCJu8FZ006909; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:56:08 +0100 (MET)
Received: from [10.61.66.89] (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp601.cisco.com [10.61.66.89]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA18972; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:56:05 GMT
Message-ID: <439DD5D4.6060209@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:56:04 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>, Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-fcs-retention-04.txt - Pub request and proto
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Please publish http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-fcs-retention-04.txt Stewart ----------------------------- Stewart Bryant is the WG Chair responsible for this WG draft. 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has been fully reviewed by the PWE3 WG. We have no concerns about the depth or breadth of the review. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? We have no concerns. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. Although we anticipate that few PWs will use this mode. The change is small and it does increase the transparency and provides a mechanism to prevent some types of packet corruption being passed outside the provider network. As such it is a worthwhile extension of the PW design. 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? This is a very simple option so everyone understands how it works. There is some concern as to whether the option provides a sufficient improvement to be worthwhile deploying. 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Yes 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) Yes it is correctly split into normative and non-normative references The following references from the PWE3 WG are in their final editorial phases within the PWE3 WG, and we expect to request their publication soon. [2] Martini, L. et al, "Frame Relay Encapsulation over Pseudo-Wires", draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt, April 2005, work in progress [3] Martini, L. et al, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/HDLC Frames Over IP and MPLS Networks", draft-ietf- pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-05.txt, May 2005, work in progress The following is WIP in the L2TPext WG. [9] Aggarwal, R. et al, "Transport of Ethernet Frames over L2TPv3", draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-03.txt, April 2005, work in progress 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: * Technical Summary The PWE3 encapsulation specifications for Ethernet, Frame Relay, and HDLC pseudowires Ethernet, Frame Relay, and HDLC pseudowires require that the original Frame Check Sequence (FCS) be removed at pseudowire ingress and regenerated at pseudowire egress. This document defines an optinal mechanism for preserving frame FCS and transporting it over the pseudowire. * Working Group Summary The PWE3 WG have thoroughly reviewed this design. There are mixed opinions in the PWE3 WG on how beneficial this option is. * Protocol Quality This is a simple modification to a well known encapsulation and the associated signalling protocol. _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
- [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-fcs-retention-04.txt - Pub… Stewart Bryant