[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-02.txt
Please take draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-02.txt through the
IESG process for publication as an Informational RFC.
The proto-shepherd-write-up (TM) is attached.
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-02
Suggest that this I-D is progressed in parallel with
(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?
Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(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?
This is a fairly old document. In its early days it had substantial
review and discussion. More recently the level of input has tailed off
probably because the draft was largely technically complete. The last
few revisions of the I-D have been largely editorial working to improve
the readability and presentaiton.
Although the I-D has had no explicit review from the MPLS working group
most of the people concerned with the operation of MPLS-TE networks over
GMPLS networks are participants in CCAMP.
(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?
(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
The document is sound.
The document filename is easily confused with
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk that is also going to the
IESG for publication at this time. But the document titles are
sufficiently different to avoid confusion.
(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?
The working group has indicated is understanding and support for the
requirements expressed in this I-D. The solution model described has
not drawn any unfavorable comments.
(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.)
No threats. No discontent.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
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?
All checks made.
(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].
(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 [RFC2434]. 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?
This is an Informational I-D.
A null IANA section is present.
(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?
No such sections.
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
Operation of a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic
engineering (TE) network as a client network to a Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) network has enhanced operational capabilities compared to
those provided by a co-existent protocol model (ships in the night).
The GMPLS network may be a packet or a non-packet network, and may
itself be a multi-layer network supporting both packet and non-packet
technologies. An MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) originates and
terminates on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network
provides transparent transport for the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP.
This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements
for operating MPLS-TE networks over GMPLS networks.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
Nothing of note.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications.
The authors list demonstrates interest from providers in this mode of
Much of the material in this document was based on draft-kumaki-ccamp-
mpls-gmpls-interworking-01.txt that had input from Cisco Systems.
Several vendors are believed to implement MPLS-TE over GMPLS in this way
and GMPLS interoperablity events are usually achieved using this model.