(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?
The MPLS working group request that:
MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Advertisement Protocol
draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-04
is published as an RFC on the standards track.
This is a standard track document because it is a protocol
specification and also request alloction from IANA registries that
requires a standard track RFC.
(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 MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) provides a data
channel associated with each Label Switched Path (LSP),
pseudowire, or section (link) that a variety of protocols may
use to exchange infomation.
These protocols are commonly used to provide Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms associated with
the primary data channel. An in-Band Data Communication
Network for Network manaement has also been specified over the
G-ACh.
This document specifies simple procedures by which an endpoint of
an LSP, pseudowire, or section may inform other endpoints of its
capabilities and configuration parameters, or other
application-specific information. This information may then be
used by the receiver to validate or adjust its local configuration,
and by the network operator for diagnostic purposes.
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?
There is good support in the working group for this draft. There
were no significant controversies in progression of the document.
Last call comments were constructive technical comments and the
document has been updated accordingly. .
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?
For this document we seem to have an chicken and egg problem.
We know of intended implementations, it seems that since the
implementation delta is rather small the implementers in this case
has decided to wait for the allocation of the ACh code point
before implementing.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD.
(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 reviewed the document at the point in time
when it was being polled to become a working group document and again
as a part of the preparation for the working group last call. The
draft has also been reviewed a number of times (partially or the
entire draft) after the working group last call was completed.
The IANA section has been reviewed several times.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No such 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.
The document shepherd believes that the current review situation is
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 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?
A poll for IPRs has been done among the authors and in the working
group.
All the authors has confirmed that they are not aware of any existing
IPR claims.
(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 this draft.
(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?
There are good support for 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 such threats!
(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.
This document passes the ID-nits tool 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 formal review requirements!
(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?
All normative references are RFCs.
(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 downward references.
(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.
This document does not change the status of any other document.
(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).
This document has a clear and well-written IANA section.
(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.
This document creates two new IANA registries, the allocation policiy
are "IETF Review" for both.
(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 review required.