MPLS Transport Profile User-to-Network and Network-to-Network Interfaces
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni-03

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 21-Dec-2010 lead to a
  discussion.  The discussion of Figure 1 and Figure 2 does not seem to
  be finished.  The discussion needs to reach closure before this
  document is approved.

[Ballot discuss]
I do not understand exactly what is required from the RFC Editor in the note in Abstract:

[RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and
  insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published
  RFC has IETF consensus.]

What is 'this note'? Does it refer to the last paragrah in the Abstract? What is 'the correct Streams Boilerplate'?

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 21-Dec-2010 lead to a
  discussion.  The discussion of Figure 1 and Figure 2 does not seem to
  be finished.  The discussion needs to reach closure before this
  document is approved.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (MPLS Transport Profile User-to-Network and Network-to-Network Interfaces) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS Transport Profile User-to-Network and Network-to-Network
  Interfaces'
  as an 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 2010-12-23. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni/

State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation.
AD Review

===

Hi,

I have performed an AD review of your draft.

Don't panic!

I review all drafts that I am responsible for before putting them forward
for IETF last call. The main objective is to catch nits and minor issues
that would show up during the last call or in IESG review. The intention is
to help polish your document and make sure it is clean and shiny so that
other reviewers will stick to the technical details.

My comments are pretty trivial, but there are sufficient of them in a
relatively short document that I'd like to see a quick respin before I
issue the IETF last call. Hopefully this won't take you more than a few
minutes. As soon as I see a new revision posted, I'll set the ball in
motion.

Of course, all of my issues are up for discussion.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

===

Abstract                                                     
s/[RFC5921]/(RFC 5921)/
---
Abstract
s/ Network-to-Network interface/ Network-to-Network Interface/
---
Abstract
Expand "MPLS-TP" on first use. (MPLS is OK as an acronym)
---
Abstract
s/IETF onsensus/IETF consensus/
---
Table of Contents

You can remove the ToC from this short I-D.

---
Section 1
Expand "MPLS-TP" on first use. (MPLS is OK as an acronym)
---
Section 1
s/Network-to-Network interface/Network-to-Network Interface/
---
Section 1.1
Expand "PE" and "CE" on first use.
---

Section 1.1

  This document provides updated illustrations of the MPLS-TP UNI and
  MPLS-TP NNI to show these additional details.  These illustrations
  are intended to obsolete the corresponding ones in [RFC5921].  This
  document also defines additional terminology referenced in the
  illustrations.  No other updates are proposed by this document.

Too tentative!

Try...

  This document provides updated illustrations of the MPLS-TP UNI and
  MPLS-TP NNI to show these additional details.  These illustrations
  obsolete figures 3 and 5 in [RFC5921].  This document also defines
  additional terminology referenced in the illustrations.  No other
  updates are made by this document.

---

Section 2

s/User-Network interface/User-to-Network Interface/

---

Section 2

s/MPLS UNI/MPLS-TP UNI/

---

Figure 1

Is it the intention that the left hand extreme of the UNI-C function
should also delimit the CE? Or should you show the top and bottom bars
of the CE box extending further to the left?

---

Figure 1

Remove the footnote "TSI = Transport Service Instance" as you have
put this in Section 1.2.

---

Figure 2

Remove the footnote "TSI = Transport Service Instance" as you have
put this in Section 1.2.

---
Section 5
s/RFC5921/[RFC5921]/
---
Section 7
Remove unused reference RFC 2119

The MPLS WG requests that:
    "MPLS Transport Profile User-to-Network and Network-to-Network
    Interfaces"
    draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni-01

is published as an informational RFC with IETF consensus.


> (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?

Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready to be
forwarded 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?

The document has been reviewed in
- mpls working group
- the ITU-T MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Team
- the ITU-T SG15, Q9, Q10, Q12 and Q14.

The shephered is convinced that this is sufficient review for this
framework document.


> (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.

> (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.

No such concerns. There is no IPR claim for this draft.



> (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?

The mpls-tp project is a joint project between IEIT and ITU-T, this
document has been developed to extend the MPLS TP Framewrok after
aggrement between IETF and ITU-T. The shepherd is not aware of any
unresolved issues.

> (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 or extreme discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
>      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?

Checks are almost clean.

- RFC2119 is defined as a reference, byut not used. We plan to
address this in AUTH48 orif the documents is re-spun as part of the
IETF revuew process.

> (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 are correctly split; actually there is only one reference
(normative).


> (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 [RFC5226]. 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?

There are no IANA actions requested by this document.


> (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 formal language.

> (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

1.1.  Motivation and Background

  The transport service interfaces for MPLS-TP are defined in Section
  3.4.3 of [RFC5921].  These definitions are illustrated by showing
  MPLS-TP PEs containing a UNI and an NNI.  The figures illustrate the
  UNI and the NNI as a span.  However, it is more conventional to
  illustrate these interfaces as reference points.  Furthermore, in the
  case of a UNI, it is useful to illustrate the distribution of UNI
  functions between the CE side and the PE side of the UNI (the UNI-C
  and UNI-N).

  This document provides updated illustrations of the MPLS-TP UNI and
  MPLS-TP NNI to show these additional details.  These illustrations
  are intended to obsolete the corresponding ones in [RFC5921].  This
  document also defines additional terminology referenced in the
  illustrations.  No other updates are proposed by this document.



Working Group Summary

  Since the document is an output from the MPLS-TP project it is the
  joint output of IETF MPLS working group and Qustion 9, 10, 12 and
  14 of ITU-T SG15.

Document Quality

The document is well reviewed in all the groups mentioned above.