Subject: [trill] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework-03.txt

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:26:12 -0400

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Informational, as indicated in the title page header. This document
  gives a high level framework within which it is planned that fault
  management and performance management facilities for TRILL will be
  specified.

(2) 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 informational document specifies a reference framework for
   Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in TRILL networks.
   The focus of the document is on the fault and performance
   management aspects of TRILL OAM.

Working Group Summary:

  Working Group consideration of the draft went smoothly without any
  major controversies. After earlier review and improvement, a call
  for volunteers to review and comment was made from the March 2013
  IETF meeting with the result that by Dan Romascanu, Sue Hares, Olen
  Stokes, and Ali Karimi all volunteered and commented. In addition,
  comments were received in this time frame from Gayle Noble and
  Prabhu Raj. All comments received were resolved. There was strong
  consensus for requesting publication.

Document Quality:

  Document is currently in good shape. Gayle Noble's contribution was
  very helpful.

Personnel:

  Document Shepherd is Jon Hudson
  Responsible Area Director is Ted Lemon

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  A few minor issues were encountered. Due to this document being the
  result of a design team, the 01 version was quite complete, the 02
  being a good version. No significant issues were encountered.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  The draft has been thoroughly reviewed but I don't believe it has
  been specifically review by the Operations Directorate.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has 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.

  No special concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosure has been filed against this document.

(9) 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 is a solid consensus with widespread support.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

  There appear to be no real nits in the document although the
  automated nits checks has four false positive comments.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such formal review is required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes. Its references have been divided into "normative" and
  "informational".

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

  This is an Informational document so it is not clear than any
  of the listed normative references need to be "advanced". There is
  one normative reference to draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling, a
  approved draft in the RFC Editor's queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

  This is an Informational document. Thus, although at least one of
  the RFCs listed as a normative reference is also Informational (RFC
  6905), this is not a downward reference and is not flagged by the
  nits checker.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).

  This document requires no IANA actions so review of the IANA
  Considerations section was simple.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new IANA registries are created.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  This draft does not include specifications in any such formal
  language.