Subject: [L2tpext] [Fwd: [draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm] Publication Request + PROTO Questionnaire]

From: Carlos Pignataro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:02:06 -0500

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm] Publication Request + PROTO
Questionnaire
Date: 	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:37:57 -0500
From: 	Carlos Pignataro <[email-masked]>
To: 	IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
CC: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]

Please, publish the ID draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06.txt as Proposed
Standard.

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06
Prepared by: Carlos Pignataro <[email-masked]>

    (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?

Yes. Carlos Pignataro will be the WG Document Shepherd for this
document.

    (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?

The document has been reviewed in the l2tpext WG. Further detailed
review was performed by Carlos Pignataro and Ignacio Goyret. Finally,
Yaakov Stein reviewed the document as a key non-WG member, active in
PWE3, and co-author of most TDM-related RFCs included as References. 
All review comments have been adequately addressed.

There are no concerns about the extent of the reviews.

    (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, we don't believe there is any need for additional review from other
areas.

    (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.

All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed in the
revision -06 of the document. To my knowledge, there aren't any
outstanding issues or concerns.

    (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 have been no dissenting voices during review and/or WGLC.

    (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. Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. The document checks idnits without any issues found:
<http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06.txt>

    (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].

The references are properly split into Normative and Informative. All
the references are already published RFCs, and there are 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 [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 is consistent with the body of the
documents, and has been enhanced for clarity as part of a WGLC comment. 
All reservation requests are from
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters>. There are suggested
values only for the "L2TPv3 Pseudowire Types", consistent with the IANA
registry. These suggested values are provided for consistency with a
corresponding pwe3-parameters number space.

    (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 on this document using any 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
             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.

This document describes transport of TDM bit-streams over the Layer Two
Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3). It describes extensions of L2TPv3
for the setup and maintenance of structure-agnostic and structure-aware
TDM Pseudowires, to transport TDM bit-streams over an IP network.

          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 is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

          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?

The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during
review and last call have been addressed.

Yaakov Stein performed a very detailed review during WGLC, with the
conclusion that "this ID looks ready for publication" at
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext/current/msg01182.html>.

This document defines an application of L2TPv3 to transport another type
of traffic, and is consistent with corresponding PWE3 documents.

Carlos Pignataro is the WG shepherd for this document.

(end)

-- 
--Carlos Pignataro.
Escalation RTP - cisco Systems

-- 
--Carlos Pignataro.
Escalation RTP - cisco Systems

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext