(1) Proposed Standard.
It defines extensions to the PW signalling protocol and PS is the
best track for this work stream.
This is indicated on the header page and the WG has reviewed it
with this expectation of publication track.
(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
Many transport services require that user traffic, in the form of
Pseudowires (PW), be delivered on a single co-routed bidirectional
LSP or two LSPs that share the same routes. In addition, the user
traffic may traverse through multiple transport networks.
This document defines an optional extension to LDP that enables the
binding between PWs and the underlying LSPs.
Working Group Summary
It is with sadness that I report that one of the authors, Ping Pan,
a much respected member of the pseudowire design community, passed
away during the development of this specification.
The working group process was unremarkable.
Document Quality
The document has been well reviewed over time and is of good
quality.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Stewart Bryant (stewart.bryant@gmail.com) 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 read this document and the requested
changes have been made by the authors. It was then reviewed by the
PALS Wg.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The Documnet Shepherd has no concerns over the review of this
document.
(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 normal IESG review process will be adquate for this text.
(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.
I have no concerns over this document.
(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 they have.
(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 discolusure has been filed and the WG has not remarked
on this.
(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 majority of the WG are silent on this, but that is quite normal
for a minor extension of this type, and should not prohibit this
document being published.
(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.)
I know of no discontent with the publication of this document.
(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 are no nits of any significance to this process.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This is not applicable.
(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 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.
There are no downrefs.
(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 chenge the status of any other 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).
The only clarification needed (and this can be added post AD review)
is that the registry requested would be in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)
(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.
No expert review is required.
(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.
This is not applicable.