[PWE3] PROTO STATEMENT - draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-08.txt

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

Danny McPherson 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.

  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.

We have no 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?

There is firm consensus for the design described in this document.

  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 informative references.
All normative references are either RFCs, or in the RFC-Editor
queue.


  1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
       announcement includes a write-up section with the following
       sections:

       *    Technical Summary

This draft describes how a ]Point to Point Protocol (PPP), or High-
Level Data Link Control (HDLC) Protocol Data Units over an
MPLS network without terminating the PPP/HDLC protocol.

This enables service providers to offer "emulated" HDLC, or PPP
link services over existing MPLS networks. This document specifies
the encapsulation of PPP/HDLC Packet Data Units (PDUs) within
a PW.

       *    Working Group Summary

This work has been thoroughly analysed by the working group
and there is consensus for the design.
       *    Protocol Quality

There are many implementations of this protocol, and it is
in operational service.




_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3