IANA Allocation Procedures for the GMPLS OTN Signal Type Registry
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-05

[Ballot comment]
I had a DISCUSS on the registration policy, but Lou has put forth this alternative, which comes from earlier discussions:

  "Standards Action" for Standards Track documents, and "Specification
  Required" for other documents. The designated expert is any current
  CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, designated
  by the IESG.

Happily clearing the DISCUSS with that text on the table.  Thanks.

[Ballot discuss]
This is DISCUSS because I'm not sure the instructions will be clear to IANA.

  This document requests that the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of
  the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
  Signaling Parameters" registry be updated with the following
  registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification
  Required" as defined in [RFC5226].

As we've talked about in response to Álvaro's review, this should say

  "Standards Action" or "Specification Required"

With "or", not "and".  It also wouldn't be a bad thing to follow Álvaro's suggestion of adding the conditions, such as:

  "Standards Action" or "Specification Required", with the latter used in
  the case of registration requests that do not come from IETF documents.

The existing "and" makes it sound like a designated expert will do a review of the specification even when it falls under Standards Action, and that's not what's intended.

This is the document shepherd write-up for

            draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04

(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?

This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document.

This is appropriate because the document describes an update of
the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Parameters" registry for the OTN signals as specified in [RFC7139]
as defined in [RFC 5226].
This track is noted in the document 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:

This document updates [RFC7139] to allow the "OTN Signal Type"
subregistry to also support Specification Required policies, as
defined in [RFC5226].

Working Group Summary:

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

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

Document Quality:

The document is concise and provides proper justification for
the update of the OTN Signal Type registry.

Personnel:

Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd
Deborah Brungard is the Responsible 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.

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 such 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 WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements
that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded.

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

No disclosures have been made.

(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?

See (2).
There has been an extensive review and there is good consensus on the
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 threats or discontent.

(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 nits found.

(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 such.

(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.

None such.

(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 issues.

(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 considerations section is the most important part of this
document. It is concise and appropriate.

However to provide more clarity on the update process I propose to
replace the text:  "Standards Action" and "Specification Required"
by:                "Standards Action" or "Specification Required"
(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.

Guidance for future updates is provided.

(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.

There are no such sections.

[Ballot comment]
The Shepherd's writeup should be updated.  The document doesn't register any new types, it just updates the registration policy.

I find the description of the updated registration policies confusing.  The text reads: "…updated with the following registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required"…"  What does the "and" of these two policies mean?  I see [1] that the WG Chair had proposed: "IANA section needs to be updated indicating the registry and the following registration policies:  "Standards Action" (for Standards Track documents) and "Specification Required" (for other documents). ", but even though there were only positive comments in reply, the document did not adopt that text. 

It might be just me who finds the current text not obvious as IANA seems to not have a problem with it either [2].

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4PRR2n5zqABNrDMhJje_raPE6Qw
[2] Message sent to the authors and IESG only.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.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.

IANA understands that this document requests that 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/

will be updated with the following registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required" as defined in RFC5226.

When needed, the Designated Expert shall be any current CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, designated by the IESG. When needed, IANA will work with the IESG to identify the Designated Expert.

The reference for the subregistry will be updated to reflect that [ RFC-to-be ] made this change to the subregistry registration policy.

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
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, huubatwork@gmail.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry@ietf.org, "Huub van Helvoort"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA Allocation Procedures for OTN Signal Type Subregistry of the GMPLS Signaling Parameters Registry) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Allocation Procedures for OTN Signal Type Subregistry of the
  GMPLS Signaling Parameters Registry'
  as Proposed
Standard

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 2016-03-14. 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


IANA has defined an "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Parameters" registry. This draft updates the OTN Signal Type
subregistry to allow Specification Required policies, as defined in
RFC 5226.





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

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


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

Document shepherd write-up for

            draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02

(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?

This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document.

This is appropriate because the document describes the extension of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signals defined in [RFC4328] and [RFC7139] with additional signal types mentioned in ITU-T G.Sup43.

This track is noted in the document 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:

The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has defined normative OTN Signal Types in G.709. These OTN Signal Types are registered by RFC7139.
The ITU-T has also defined non-normative OTN Signal Types in G.Sup43. This document registers these additional OTN Signal Types.

Working Group Summary:

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

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

Document Quality:

The document is concise and provides proper justification for the extension of the OTN Signal Type registry.

Personnel:

Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard is the Responsible 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.

The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the document and has found nits, see (11).
After addressing these nits 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 such 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 WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. The links to the disclosures can be found in the comments (history) of the document.

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

No disclosures have been made.

(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?

See (2).
There has been a good review and there is good consensus on the 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 threats or discontent.

(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.

Fix nits errors:
Security considerations section is not required.

In Abstract
s/[RFC5226]/RFC 5226/

Fix nits warning:
Because G.Sup43 has been approved and published the following change should be made in section 4.2 (this will also align it with the reference present in section 1)
OLD:
    [GSUP.43] ITU-T, "Proposed revision of G.sup43 (for agreement)",
              February, 2011.
NEW:
    [G.Sup43] ITU-T, “Transport of IEEE 10GBASE-R in optical
              transport networks (OTN)”, February, 2011.

(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 references are identified correctly.
The Informative Reference has been approved and published.

(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 such.

(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.

None such.

(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 issues.

(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 considerations section is the most important part of this document. It is concise and appropriate.

(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.

The additional subregistries are identified properly.

(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.

There are no such sections.

Document shepherd write-up for

            draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02

(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?

This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document.

This is appropriate because the document describes the extension of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signals defined in [RFC4328] and [RFC7139] with additional signal types mentioned in ITU-T G.Sup43.

This track is noted in the document 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:

The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has defined normative OTN Signal Types in G.709. These OTN Signal Types are registered by RFC7139.
The ITU-T has also defined non-normative OTN Signal Types in G.Sup43. This document registers these additional OTN Signal Types.

Working Group Summary:

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

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

Document Quality:

The document is concise and provides proper justification for the extension of the OTN Signal Type registry.

Personnel:

Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard is the Responsible 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.

The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the document and has found nits, see (11).
After addressing these nits 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 such 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 WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. The links to the disclosures can be found in the comments (history) of the document.

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

No disclosures have been made.

(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?

See (2).
There has been a good review and there is good consensus on the 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 threats or discontent.

(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.

Fix nits errors:
Security considerations section is not required.

In Abstract
s/[RFC5226]/RFC 5226/

Fix nits warning:
Because G.Sup43 has been approved and published the following change should be made in section 4.2 (this will also align it with the reference present in section 1)
OLD:
    [GSUP.43] ITU-T, "Proposed revision of G.sup43 (for agreement)",
              February, 2011.
NEW:
    [G.Sup43] ITU-T, “Transport of IEEE 10GBASE-R in optical
              transport networks (OTN)”, February, 2011.

(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 references are identified correctly.
The Informative Reference has been approved and published.

(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 such.

(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.

None such.

(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 issues.

(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 considerations section is the most important part of this document. It is concise and appropriate.

(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.

The additional subregistries are identified properly.

(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.

There are no such sections.

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/RDyu5HikSavUredhzGb_QAORDdc

AUTHORS

Fatai Zhang                 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Fr4u446tLWnJWBeX2x6BXtQoPIo
Zafar Ali                Email: zali@cisco.com                 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Y4GVwhcwgPc22TMS_48tlxxoVXo
Matt Hartley                 mhartley@cisco.com                         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/D0mPR81BoDTDRMIqx8dY0T3K3To
Antonello Bonfanti abonfant@cisco.com                       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CppNgJeqV16HdYTuvR-laGt6eLc