Subject: [ANCP] Request to publish draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-15.txt

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:35:17 +0100

draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-15.txt

Document Shepard Write-Up

    (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?

Matthew Bocci ([email-masked])
        Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for
        forwarding to the IESG.

    (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?

        Yes, the document has received adequate review. The document
       has been developed over long period within the WG and received
        extensive review over several years, as well as two WG last calls.

    (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.

    (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.

       No specific concerns. There is one IPR disclosure, 1124, which is
       also claimed to apply to draft-ietf-ancp-framework-08 (now
       RFC5851). The IPR disclosure was highlighted during WG last call,
       but no concerns were raised.

    (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?

      I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
     been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants.

    (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.)

       None indicated.

    (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?

       The document satisfied ID nits. No further formal reviews are
       required.

    (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].

      Yes, the references are split appropriately. There is one reference
      to the ANCP framework, that will need to be updated as both documents
      should be published together.

    (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 [RFC5226]. 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?

      The IANA considerations section exists and makes appropriate
      requests.

    (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?

      There are no sections that use a formal language.

    (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 the Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP).
   ANCP operates between a Network Access Server (NAS) and an Access
   Node (e.g., a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM)) in
   a multi-service reference architecture in order to perform QoS-
   related, service-related and subscriber-related operations.  Use
   cases for ANCP are documented in RFC 5851.  As well as describing the
   base ANCP protocol, this document specifies capabilities for Digital
   Subscriber Line (DSL) topology discovery, line configuration, and
   remote line connectivity testing.  The design of ANCP allows for
   protocol extensions in other documents if they are needed to support
   other use cases and other access technologies.

   ANCP is based on GSMPv3 (RFC 3292), but with many modifications and
   extensions, to the point that the two protocols are not
   interoperable.

   This document is a product of the ANCP working group.

   This document is Standards Track.

Working Group Summary

The origin of the working group can be traced back to the WT-147 "Layer 2 Control Protocol"
document from the Broadband Forum. The ANCP protocol developed in the ANCP working group
as a result of that document is typically used in the access and aggregation portions of a broadband
access network, and also in inter-provider
environments. This draft specifies the base protocol for ANCP, which is n itself derived from GSMP.

Document Quality

The document specifies the base protocol for ANCP which has a number of implementations.

Personnel
  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

 Matthew Bocci ([email-masked])

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
 Ralph Droms