Usage of the RSVP ASSOCIATION Object
draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.  I do have a comment/suggestion though...

1. I believe that the 2nd paragraph of the intro can be substantially re-worded or deleted altogether.  The thrust of the draft is to provide additional detail on the use of association information.  That does not require referencing Adrian's e-mail to the list.

2. If the text in the intro that references Adrian's e-mail is removed, the Acknowledgments section can be re-worded to drop the reference as well.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Usage of The RSVP Association Object) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Usage of The RSVP Association Object'
  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 2012-05-14. 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

  The RSVP ASSOCIATION object was defined in the context of GMPLS
  (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label
  switched paths (LSPs).  In this context, the object is used to
  associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they are protecting.  This
  document reviews how association is to be provided in the context
  of GMPLS recovery.  No new procedures or mechanisms are
  defined by this document and it is strictly informative in nature.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info/ballot/


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

(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. Provides additional narrative, no new procedures or
mechanisms are defined. Yes.

(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

The RSVP ASSOCIATION object was defined in the context of GMPLS
(Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label
switched paths (LSPs). In this context, the object is used to
associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they are protecting. This
document reviews how association is to be provided in the context
of GMPLS recovery. No new procedures or mechanisms are
defined by this document and it is strictly informative in nature.


Working Group Summary

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

No. Document was a result of questions on proper interpretation of
this object. Good support by the WG.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

Not applicable for this document.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?

Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the
Area Director.

(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.

This document has been adequately reviewed.

(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.

(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.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(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?

The WG supported this document.

(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.

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

No issues.

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

Not applicable.

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

No.

(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.

No.

(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).

Not applicable.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

Not applicable.