Subject: [Tsvwg] Writeup for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-01

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:43:18 +0200

Doc shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn requested to be
published as proposed standard by Magnus Westerlund

    (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?

Document shepherd is Magnus Westerlund who has reviewed version 01 and
believes it ready with a few exceptions that can be handed as AD
evaluation comments.

    (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?

This document has gotten review from both TSVWG RSVP expert and L3VPN WG
people. No concerns over the level of 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 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?

It has strong consensus from the RSVP interested in the WG.

    (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. ID-nits give some warnings due to that it was submitted prior to
boiler plate changes.

    (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. 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?

Yes, IANA section seems to be in order.

    (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 is no 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.

Technical Summary

   RFC 4364 and RFC 4659 define an approach to building provider-
   provisioned Layer 3 VPNs for IPv4 and IPv6.  It may be desirable to
   use RSVP to perform admission control on the links between CE and PE
   routers.  This document specifies procedures by which RSVP messages
   travelling from CE to CE across an L3VPN may be appropriately handled
   by PE routers so that admission control can be performed on PE-CE
   links.  Optionally, admission control across the provider's backbone
   may also be supported.

Working Group Summary

   This document has been last called in both TSVWG and L3VPN. There is
   strong consensus from the RSVP interested in this document to publish
   it.

Document Quality

   This document has gotten reviews from key people in TSVWG and L3VPN.

Personnel

   Document Shepherd and Responsible AD Magnus Westerlund

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:47:01 +0200

>           disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on

Here I went a bit to fast. There is an IPR statement on this document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/989/

The WG was informed and no one has raised any concerns over the statement.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund