Subject: [PWE3] Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-03.txt

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:12:22 -0400

Document Shepard Write-Up for draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-03.txt

    (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?

Andrew Malis, [email-masked]

Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe 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?

Yes, the document has received adequate discussion and review. The
document went through last call in the PWE3 working group, and the
only comment received during last call was regarding a single typo,
which can be corrected following IESG review. That typo is:

In the title of section 4.2
    replace "P2MP SS-PW Underlying Layer"
    by "P2MP MS-PW Underlying Layer"

    (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 concerns or issues.

    (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 summarize 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 passes ID nits. This document is not subject to MIB
doctor or other reviews.

    (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. All of the normative
references are to published RFCs, with no downrefs (the intended
category is Informational). The two informative references are both WG
drafts (but in other working groups).

    (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. It does not request any new allocations.

    (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 presents a set of requirements for providing a
Point-to-Multipoint PWE3 (Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge)
emulation. The requirements identified in this document are related to
architecture, signaling and maintenance aspects of a
Point-to-Multipoint PW operation. They are proposed as guidelines for
the standardization of such mechanisms. Among other potential
applications Point-to-Multipoint PWs SHOULD be used to optimize the
support of multicast services (Virtual Private LAN Service and Virtual
Private Multicast Service) as defined in the Layer 2 Virtual Private
Network working group.

This document is a product of the PWE3 working group.

This document is INFORMATIONAL.

Working Group Summary

One of the major ongoing projects in the PWE3 working group is
extending pseudowires from just a simple point-to-point connection to
also supporting point-to-multipoint connections. This draft provides
the requirements for these extensions; there is a separate draft,
draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-00, which defines the necessary protocol
extensions.

Document Quality

There are no concerns about document quality.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Andrew Malis, [email-masked]

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Stewart Bryant