Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 7963, changed title to 'RSVP-TE Extension for Additional Signal Types in G.709 Optical Transport Networks (OTNs)', changed abstract to 'RFCs 4328 and 7139 provide signaling extensions in Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to control the full set of Optical Transport Network (OTN) features.  However, these specifications do not cover the additional Optical channel Data Unit (ODU) containers defined in G.Sup43 (ODU1e, ODU3e1, and ODU3e2).  This document defines new Signal Types for these additional containers.', changed pages to 5, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2016-08-26, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the OTN Signal Type subregistry of the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/

three new signal types are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: ODU1e (10Gbps Ethernet [G.Sup43])
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: ODU3e1 (40Gbps Ethernet [G.Sup43])
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: ODU3e2 (40Gbps Ethernet [G.Sup43])
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have requested specific values for these new registrations. In particular, the values 23, 26 and 27 have been requested for these.

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. If there is no expert designated for the registry, we will work with the IESG to have one assigned. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3@ietf.org, "Daniele Ceccarelli" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-04.txt> (Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extension for Additional Signal Types in G.709 OTN) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extension
  for Additional Signal Types in G.709 OTN'
  <draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-04.txt> as
Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-06-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


RFC 4328 and RFC 7139 provide Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extensions to control the full set
of Optical Transport Network (OTN) features. However, these
specifications do not cover the additional Optical channel Data
Unit (ODU) containers defined in G.Sup43 (ODU1e, ODU3e1 and
ODU3e2). This document defines new signal types for these
additional containers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Write up for draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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. It is the proper type as it requests for the allocation of code points for non-standard data plane. The type is correctly indicated in the header.

(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

RFC 4328 and RFC 7139 provide Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extensions to control the full set of Optical Transport Network (OTN) features. However, these specifications do not cover the additional Optical channel Data Unit (ODU) containers defined in G.Sup43 (ODU1e, ODU3e1 and ODU3e2). This document updates RFC 7139 to define new signal types for these additional containers.

Working Group Summary

The ID went through a second last call after the update of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry, which now allows for the support of “Specification Required policies” in the “OTN Siganl Type” subregistry.

Document Quality

At least two vendors have plans for developing the extensions defined in this document.
The document was thoroughly  by Adrian Farrel and Lou Berger, they are both mentioned in the acknowledgements section.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Daniele Ceccarelli
Responsible Area director: Deborah Brungard

(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.

The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the
document. He believes it is ready for publication.

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

No concerns.

(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.

No such content.

(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 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.

The chair run the IPR polling and all of the authors replied. The replies are tracked in the history of the document. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3/history/ )

(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 disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3.

(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? 

Good among interested parties. No objections from others.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No threats or discontent.

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

The document passes tools idnits.

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

No such reviews needed.

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

All normative and informative references are identified correctly.

(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?

None

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

None

(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.

RFC 7139 will be updated. (correctly reported in the ID header).

(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).

The IANA section is properly written and reflects the protocol changes proposed by the document.

(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 registry is defined, just an existing one updated.

(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.

No such sections.