Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 16:21:08 -0400

Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt

Intended status : Standards Track

> (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. The discrepency in RFC 4420 addressed by
this

document was identified by a forum during interoperability testing and

communicated to CCAMP.

> (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 IANA allocations made for RFC 4420 apply to this document.

No new IANA allocations are needed. In Section 11 "IANA Considerations",

it is requested for IANA to update RFC 4420 registry entries to

reference this document.

> (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.

Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be

established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)

extensions.  This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE
object) that

carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the
LSP.  That Flags field

has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set.  Recent proposals
in many documents that

extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused
bits.

This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the
signaling of further

attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters
to make RSVP-TE easily

extensible to support new requirements.  Additionally, this document
defines a way

to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis.

The object mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable to
Generalized MPLS

(GMPLS) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) LSPs and to GMPLS non-PSC LSPs.

This document replaces and obsoletes the previous version of this work
published as RFC 4420.

The only change is in the encoding of the Type-Length-Variable (TLV)
data structures.

> 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?

There are a substantial number of implementations. Interoperability
testing

by a forum identified the discrepency in RFC 4420 which is addressed by
this

document.