Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-05.txt

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:48:58 -0500

Proto-write-up for
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-05.txt

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?

I-D had good review and discussion in the CCAMP working

group doing its development. It has not had review in any wider forums,
but none was deemed

necessary or appropriate.

> (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.

No concerns. No IPR disclosures 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?

Consensus is good.

> (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
<http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html>  and

> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
<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 downward references.

> (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?

The document is informational (no requests for IANA action). Null

IANA section 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 such formal language is 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.

Protection and recovery are important features of service offerings in
Multiprotocol Label Switching

(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Increasingly, MPLS and
GMPLS networks

are being extended from single domain scope to multi-domain
environments. Various schemes and

processes have been developed to establish Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
in multi-domain environments.

These are discussed in RFC 4726: A Framework for Inter-Domain
Multiprotocol Label Switching

Traffic Engineering.

This document analyzes the application of these techniques to protection
and recovery in multi-domain

networks. The main focus for this document is on establishing end-to-end
diverse Traffic Engineering (TE)

LSPs in multi-domain networks.

> 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?

WG had good consensus with no disputes or disagreements.

> 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?

This is an Informational RFC with no protocol specifications.