Publication Request: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt has completed CCAMP WG last call
without any further comments and is ready according to my judgement.

Please advance it for publication on the Standards Track to replace RFC
3946.

Note that the deltas on RFC3946 are very small. A clarification has been
made where the text was ambiguous and was leading to confusion amongst
implementers and at interoperation test events. To see a version of the
document with change markers and editors notes please visit
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt

Here is a WG Chair write-up according to the notes at
http://rtg.ietf.org/area/procedures/proto_wgchair_writeup

Thanks,
Adrian
===
1. 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.

2. 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?

Good review. No concerns.

3. 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.)?

No concerns.

4. 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.

No concerns.

5. 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?

Good consensus.

6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email to the Responsible Area Director.

None.

7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID
Checklist items ?

Yes.

8. 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.)

All references are normative and are marked as such.
References are sound and stable.

9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard,
Informational?)

Proposed Standard.

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

- Technical Summary
  This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol
  Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous
  Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
  technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling.

- Working Group Summary
   The CCAMP WG has consensus on this document.
   There was some debate about whether we should try to converge SONET
   and SDH signlaing message encoding on the same values, but agreed not
to
   do this in order to support backward compatibility.

- Protocol Quality
  - This document is a minor modification of RFC3946 that was reviewed
     for the IESG by Bert Wijnen and received IESG consent.
  - There are multiple existing implementations of RFC3946 and this bis.
  - The deltas on RFC 3946 have been discussed with the OIF.