Using and Extending the NSIS Protocol Family
draft-ietf-nsis-ext-07

[Ballot discuss]
The descriptions of the various allocation policies in ietf-nsis-ntlp don't seem to match what's in the actual document. Most of those break the values into ranges with policies of "standards action", "expert review", "private experimental use", and "reserved". The corresponding descriptions in this document say "IETF review of a specification" or "expert review". In the section on Object Type ID, this document says "IETF review of a specification or through another acceptable published specification", which doesn't match what's in nsis-ntlp-20.

The draft "Using and Extending the NSIS Protocol Family" has been reviewed by the NSIS WG.

There was a working group last call that ended on April 17, 2009.



The I-D is now ready for AD and IESG review. Below are details about the I-D:

Title:  NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling
I-D: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nsis-ext-06.txt

Status: Informational 
 
  (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?

Martin Stiemerling (martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu).
Personally review and it is ready for IESG review.

  (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? 

Yes. The ID has passed working group last calls and received
good reviews during the process.

  (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.  The document has undergone extensive Working
Group review.

  (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.

  (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 is a strong consensus in the WG supporting this work,
at this point there is no disenting voices in the WG.

  (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.

  (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?

Satiesfies nits, but references will be need to updated
before publication.

  (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].

The document does split references into normative and
informative ones.

  (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?

IANA consideration is present, but no IANA action is needed.

  (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?

None of such a section present.

  (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 gives an overview of the Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS)
  framework and protocol suite created by the NSIS working group during
  the period 2001-2009 together with suggestions on how the industry
  can make use of the new protocols, and how the community can exploit
  the extensibility of both the framework and existing protocols to
  address future signaling needs.



    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?

  This document is an outcome of the NSIS WG.

    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?

The document is a supplemental document to the NSIS protocols
with an informational purpose.

Title: NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling
I-D: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nsis-ext-05.txt

Status: Informational

Response to template:

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
for publication?

Yes, it is.


2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes. The ID has passed working group last calls and received good
reviews during the process.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, etc.)?

No concerns. The document has undergone extensive Working Group review.

4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No.

5) 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 is a strong consensus in the WG supporting this work, at this
point there is no disenting voices in the WG.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No.

7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.

8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
(Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
also ready for publication as RFCs.)

The document does split references into normative and informative ones.

9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a writeup section with the following
sections:

It is informational only.