Shepherd writeup
rfc8625-16

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?

>Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as extensions to RSVP-TE are defined and it is correctly indicated in the title page hearder.

(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

   A packet switching network may contain links with variable bandwidth, 
   e.g., copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links is sensitive 
   to external environment. Availability is typically used for 
   describing the link during network planning. This document 
   introduces an optional Availability TLV in Resource ReSerVation 
   Protocol - Traffic Engineer (RSVP-TE) signaling. This extension can 
   be used to set up a Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
   (GMPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) using the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC 
   object.

Working Group Summary

The document followed the regular process and no particular controversy was raised by any WG member.   

Document Quality

The document is supported both by vendors and operators active in the working group. 

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 is ready to be submitted to the IESG. 

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

None

(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. The document defines extensions to the RSVP-TE protocol. A routing area directorate review as per standard process should be sufficient. 

(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. All IPR declarations have been collected and stored in the history of the document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability/history/

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

An IPR has been disclosed against the document in accordance with the process. No objection or issued raised by the WG. 

(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 document is relevant to particular area which is of interest of a portion of the working group. All the members of the WG interested in that area showed support for 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 such a threat.

(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 is clean.

(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 are needed for this document. 

(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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

All the protocol extensions are correctly associated with the appropriate IANA registry reservations. 

(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 registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as  defined in [RFC8126].

(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 checks needed/performed. 
Back