Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) Extended Circuit Status Values
draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-05

[Ballot discuss] In section 2 the final semantics of the N bit is now unclear! You say... "This document deprecates this bit as it is ...

[Ballot discuss]
In section 2 the final semantics of the N bit is now unclear!
You say...
  "This document deprecates this bit as it is of little or no use"
But you also define the meaning of the bit, and say that it is
OPTIONAL to send and only "SHOULD be ignored" implying that it "MAY
be processed for logging".

These explanations are unclear and contradictory. You need to focus on
- new implementations
- legacy implementations

o A legacy implementation will always set the N bit as defined in 3931.

o A legacy implementation will always read meaning into the N bit
  although it is possible that no implementation does anything except
  to log it.

o A new implementation must provide some value in this bit (no bit is
  actually optional to send!). What value MUST it supply?

o A new implementation presumably MUST NOT examine the N bit.

Further down the same section you imply that the new implementations should send N=0. The table after the figure is a little confused as it shows the N bit, although the figure does not. I think you should show 'N' in the figure, and in the table you should show...
    (N)  14  0x0002  Reserved [use deprecated]

This should also be reflected in Section 6

[Ballot comment] Section 4719, paragraph 13: > Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for s/more granular/finer-grained/ (right?) Section 2., paragraph 9 ...

[Ballot comment]
Section 4719, paragraph 13:
>    Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for

  s/more granular/finer-grained/ (right?)


Section 2., paragraph 9:
>    (both local attachment circuit and local PSN-facing pseudowire) has

  Please expand acronyms on first use (PSN, etc.)


Section 2., paragraph 11:
>    This document deprecates this
>    bit as it is of little or no use, hence this bit SHOULD be ignored on
>    receipt and is OPTIONAL to send.  For reference, see Section 3.4 of

  s/send/set/ (it's difficult to not send the bit...)


Section 2., paragraph 15:
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |    Reserved    |S|E|I|T|R|0|A|
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  s/0/N/ (it's still permitted to set it to 1 according to the text, so
  making it 0 in the picture is inaccurate, I think)

(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 ...

(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?

Yes. Ignacio Goyret will be the WG Document Shepherd for this document.

(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?

The document has been reviewed in the l2tpext WG and the pwe3 WG
(see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext/current/msg01202.html
and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10354.html).
Further detailed review was performed by Ignacio Goyret.

There are no concerns about the extent of the reviews.

(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?

We don't believe there is any need for additional review from other areas
since the document extends a parameter that only affects L2TP version 3.

(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?

All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed.
To my knowledge, there aren't any outstanding issues.


Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed?

To my knowledge, no IPR disclosures have been filed.



(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?

There have been no dissenting voices during review and/or WGLC.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document satisfies all ID nits.

Note: The idnits tool mentions an "unresolved reference" because
the string "[PSN]" is used in a figure. This will be resolved
during AUTH48.


(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 [<http: tools.ietf.org="" html="" rfc3967="">RFC3967]?


References have been split into normative and informative.
All normative references are already published RFCs.

Some of the informative references are drafts.

This draft is referenced (informative) by draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-10.txt
using its old name (draft-nmcgill-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions).
The authors have been contacted to update the reference on their next
revision.


(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?

Yes.

(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 on this document using any formal language.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up.

* Technical Summary

This document defines additional Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3
(L2TPv3) bit values to be used within the "Circuit Status" Attribute
Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for
circuits and pseudowires.

It also generalizes the "Active" bit and deprecates the use of
the "New" bit in the "Circuit Status" AVP, updating RFC3931, RFC4349,
RFC4454, RFC4591, and RFC4719.

* Working Group Summary

There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

* Document Quality

The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during
review and last call have been addressed.

Ignacio Goyret is the WG shepherd for this document.