(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?
Yes
(1.b) Has the document had
adequate review both from key WG
members
and from key
non-WG members?
Yes
Does
the Document Shepherd have any concerns
about the depth or breadth of the reviews
that
have been
performed?
No
concerns.
(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
concerns.
(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.
No
concerns.
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.
None have
been filed.
(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?
WG
agrees.
(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.
Satisfies.
One reference comment (see 1.h).
Has
the document met all formal review
criteria it needs to, such as the
MIB
Doctor, media type
and URI type reviews?
Yes.
(1.h) Has the document split its
references into normative
and
informative?
Yes.
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?
One
reference to draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching, which should be
progressed
with
this one to ensure the RFC Ed can sort out.
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching
has
finished WG Last Call and it is Standards
Track.
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].
No.
(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].
Yes
to all above.
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?
None
required.
(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?
Not
applicable.
(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
This document describes procedures and protocol extensions for the
use
of Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
signaling in
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) packet networks
and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) packet and
non-packet networks to support the
establishment and maintenance of
Label Switched Paths that cross domain
boundaries.
Working Group
Summary
The Working Group had consensus on this
document.
Document Quality
This document has
been implemented.
Personnel
Who is the
Document Shepherd for this document? Deborah
Brungard
Who is the Responsible
Area Director(s)? Ross Callon, David
Ward.
Is an IANA expert needed? No.