Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-03 Intended status : Informational > (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? Deborah Brungard is the document shepherd. She 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 document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. Most importantly it has had input from the authors of RFC 5063 that documents the protocol procedures. > (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. 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. The document is sound. No IPR disclosures 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? There were no problems with consensus for this document. > (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://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > 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]. References split. No downrefs. > (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 that makes no requestes of IANA. A Null IANA section is included. > (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 formal language used. > (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 > 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 > or introduction. The Hello message for the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) has been defined to establish and maintain basic signaling node adjacencies for Label Switching Routers (LSRs) participating in a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered (TE) network. The Hello message has been extended for use in Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network for state recovery of control channel or nodal faults. GMPLS protocol definitions for RSVP also allow a restarting node to learn the label that it previously allocated for use on a Label Switching Path (LSP). Further RSVP protocol extensions have been defined to enable a restarting node to recover full control plane state by exchanging RSVP messages with its upstream and downstream neighbors. This document provides an informational clarification of the control plane procedures for a GMPLS network when there are multiple node failures, and describes how full control plane state can be recovered in different scenarios where the order in which the nodes restart is different. This document does not define any new processes or procedures. All protocol mechanisms are already defined in the referenced documents. > 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 > rough? There was some debate about the need for this work. It was suggested that all of the necessary explanation of the operation of graceful restart was included in RFC 5063. However, the repeated questions about how to use the protocol extensions in corner cases and double faliure scenarios makes this work valuable. Otherwise, all parts of the WG process were normal. > Document Quality > 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? There are several implementations of the graceful restart processes described in RFC 5063. Experience from these implementations has provided valuable input to this document.