Subject: [tsvwg] TSVWG Publication request for draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14.

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:31:24 +0000

Dear TSVWG and TSV ADs,

This note contains the write-up for the TSV ADs requesting publication 
of draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergecny-rsvp as a Proposed Standard. Thank you for 
your reviews and comments, and the work of the authors in completing 
this work. The outcome of this activity is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14.txt

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst
(TSVWG Co-Chair).

NOTE:
The status of all other TSVWG work items is summarised at:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/

----

This is the WG shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp 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?

Gorry Fairhurst 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?

Version -07 received review from a reasonably wide community. This 
version received substantial IESG feedback that lead to significant 
changes to the document, including new language on sessions (08,11), 
revised language defining use in controlled environments (09,10) and 
restricting intra-domain cases (12), updated security considerations (09).

The current draft (-14) provides significant re-focussing to remove 
references to emergency use. Following comments by Ron Bonica during 
IESG review, a sentence was added to the abstract stating:  "Based on 
current security concerns, these extensions are targeting applicability 
within a single administrative domain."

The present revision was discussed by the TSVWG (including IETF-75) and 
in 2 week WGLC that concluded on 17th October 2009.

    (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. The shepherd has no concerns regarding the review.

    (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 with the extension mechanisms.

The authors were proposing "within controlled environments" instead of a 
"single administrative domain". This would seem to me to align with 
other use-cases for RSVP. It would be useful to check whether Ron still 
objects to using this wording.

    (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?

The latest version has been discussed by the TSVWG and there was consensus
to publish the updated document. v07 was also reviewed by participants
from the NSIS and DIME WGs due to overlap in namespace.
This was resolved jointly.  There was WG consensus to publish the updated
rev -12 document as a generic RSVP mechanism.

    (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, version -07 was also verified and seen to be consistent with documents
from the NSIS and DIME WGs.

    (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?

Not appropriate.

    (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

    Some applications require the ability to provide an elevated
    probability of session establishment to specific sessions in times of
    network congestion.  When supported over the Internet Protocol suite,
    this may be facilitated through a network layer admission control
    solution that supports prioritized access to resources (e.g.,
    bandwidth).  These resources may be explicitly set aside for
    prioritized sessions, or may be shared with other sessions.  This
    document specifies extensions to the Resource reSerVation Protocol
    (RSVP) that can be used to support such an admission priority
    capability at the network layer.

           Working Group Summary

There is WG consensus for publishing this document.

           Document Quality

This document has been well reviewed by the WG.  It now includes changes 
after IESG feedback and updates after further discussion in TSVWG.

           Personnel

Magnus Westerlund was previously the WG shepherd of an earlier 
submission and is now the responsible AD.

----------------------------------------------------