Subject: [Tsvwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:45:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Resource ReSerVation Protovol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Services
	Author(s)       : F. Le Faucheur, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-07.txt
	Pages           : 32
	Date            : 2008-04-11

An Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) requires the ability to
provide an elevated probability of session establishment to an
authorized user in times of network congestion (typically, during a
crisis).  When supported over the Internet Protocol suite, this may
be facilitated through a network layer admission control solution,
which supports prioritized access to resources (e.g., bandwidth).
These resources may be explicitly set aside for emergency services,
or they may be shared with other sessions.

This document specifies RSVP extensions that can be used to support
such an admission priority capability at the network layer.  Note
that these extensions represent one possible solution component in
satisfying ETS requirements.  Other solution components, or other
solutions, are outside the scope of this document.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-07.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:03:29 +0200

Hi,
This updated version addressed:
	- comment from Hannes (re option to use dime-diameter-qos for  
Authentication/Authorization) as announced on list
	- tweaked reference to nsis-qspec. Refer to "Admission Priority  
Field" (instead of "Admission Priority Parameter") to align with  
recently posted nsis-qpsec-20.
I believe this is ready to go ahead.
Francois

Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: 11 April 2008 11:45:01 GMT+02:00
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Tsvwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-07.txt
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-ID: <[email-masked]>
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:21:52 +0200

Francois Le Faucheur IMAP skrev:
> - tweaked reference to nsis-qspec. Refer to "Admission Priority Field" 
> (instead of "Admission Priority Parameter") to align with recently 
> posted nsis-qpsec-20.

Agreed, I will now request publication.

Here is the writeup for this document:

This is the WG shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergecny-rsvp-07 
for publication as Proposed Standard:

    (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?

Magnus Westerlund is the shepherd and he thinks it is ready 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?

It has gotten sufficient review from a reasonably wide community. 
Shepherd has no concerns regarding the review.

    (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.

    (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?

It is an okay consensus from a reasonable number of 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.)

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?  If the document
           does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
           the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Yes, and this document is intended for Proposed standard.

    (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

    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
           Considerations 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 the Document
           Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
           the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

Yes, also verified to be consistent with documents from NSIS and DIME WG.

    (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 sections.

    (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

           Working Group Summary
There is a good consensus on publishing this document.

           Document Quality
This document has been well reviewed by the WG and also participants 
from NSIS and the DIME WG due to overlap in namespace that was resolved 
jointly.

           Personnel
Magnus Westerlund is both WG shepherd and responsible AD.

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------