[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-07.txt
Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-07.txt as an
Informational RFC.
Here is the Document Shepherd write-up.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 has 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.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks
are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Yes.
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?
All OK.
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].
IANA section is correct. No IANA action required.
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 clarifies the use of addresses in Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. The aim is to
facilitate interworking of GMPLS-capable Label Switching Routers
(LSRs). The document is based on experience gained in implementation,
interoperability testing, and deployment.
The document describes how to interpret address and identifier fields
within GMPLS protocols, and how to choose which addresses to set in
those fields for specific control plane usage models. It also
discusses how to handle IPv6 sources and destinations in the MPLS and
GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)
modules.
Working Group Summary
The Working Group had consensus on this document.
However, there was considerable debate as to whether this should be an
Informational RFC, a BCP, or a Standards Track RFC. The WG was unable
to get a clear understanding of how this document should fit in to the
defined categories.
- It was felt that much if not all of the clarifications present in
this document were already present as procedural rules in existing
RFCs (which are referenced). Thus, making this document Standards
Track would have caused duplication of definitions. However, earlier
versions of this document used RFC2119 language and that appeared to
make it a Standards Track document.
- BCP was seriously considered, however it was felt that for most of
the clarifications the procedures were already defined in the
referenced RFCs and so no BCP was strictly needed.
Thus the document is requested for publication as an Informational RFC
and has been appropriately updated so that no RFC2119 language is used.
Document Quality
This document is based upon experience collected from implementers and
from interoperability events.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Who is the Responsible Area Director(s)?
Ross Callon, David Ward.
Is an IANA expert needed?
No.
Thanks,
Adrian