Evaluation of Existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-06

[Ballot discuss]
[Note:  This text was previously entered as a comment.  After some reflection and
input from my peers, I have concluded that these issues merit a discuss rather than
a comment.]

This document does not appear to address some of the requiremenmts detailed in
mln-reqs.  Most significantly, the scalability issues raised in section 5.3 of mln-req
are not directly addressed.  They are only mentioned in passing.  Given the amount
of attention devoted to this topic in the requirements document, I expected more.

The mln-reqs document also highlights the importance of policy in a number of
requirements, e.g. "Such traffic disruption MAY be allowed, but MUST be under the
control of policy that can be configured by the operator." in section 5.5.  However,
mln-eval never mentions policy at all.

[Ballot comment]
This document does not appear to address some of the requiremenmts detailed in
mln-reqs.  Most significantly, the scalability issues raised in section 5.3 of mln-req
are not directly addressed.  They are only mentioned in passing.  Given the amount
of attention devoted to this topic in the requirements document, I expected more.

The mln-reqs document also highlights the importance of policy in a number of
requirements, e.g. "Such traffic disruption MAY be allowed, but MUST be under the
control of policy that can be configured by the operator." in section 5.5.  However,
mln-eval never mentions policy at all.

Proto writeup for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05 by Adrian Farrel:


Intended status : Informational

Recommend that this I-D is progressed in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07.txt requested for publication at the same time.


> (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?

Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG 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?

Long list of authors/contributors/acknowledgees.

This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received
some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.

In addition, the I-D received thorough review on liaison from Question
14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T.

These reviews have been sufficiently deep and broad.

> (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 concerns.

> (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.

The document is sound.

> (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 were no problems with consensus for this document.

> (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 threats. No discontent.

> (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?

All checks made.

> (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].

References split.
No downrefs.

> (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 [RFC2434].  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?

This is an Informational I-D.
A null IANA section is present.

> (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?

No such sections.

> (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.

This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the
requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks
(MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional
protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these
requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions.

>        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?

Nothing of note.

>        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?

This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications.
Expert review of multi-layer network architecture was received from
the ITU-T.