Shepherd writeup
rfc7795-03

Document Shepherd Write-Up 

     draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt


(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?

Standards Track.

This is appropriate since the draft defines new procedures for supporting
pseudowire redundancy for multi-segment pseudowires at a switching provider 
edge (S-PE). 

The status is indicated in the draft header on the first page.  

(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:

   This document describes Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) protection
   scenarios in which the pseudowire redundancy is provided on the
   Switching-PE (S-PE).  Operations of the S-PEs which provide PW
   redundancy are specified in this document.  Signaling of the
   preferential forwarding status as defined in [RFC 6870] is reused.
   This document does not require any change to the T-PEs of MS-PW.


Working Group Summary:

   There was nothing particularly unusual in the progress of the draft. The document
   originated in the PWE3 working group and moved to the PALS working group when PWE3
   was concluded in November 2014. The primary discussion in PWE3 was around clarification
   of the new procedures at the S-PE.  

Document Quality:

   There are multiple implementations of PW redundancy, based on RFC6718 and RFC6870.
   This document reuses the procedures in those RFCs in the context of an S-PE. 
   The document has also been widely reviewed by the original authors and 
   contributors to those RFCs. I do not have any concerns with the quality of the
   document.
   

Personnel:

   The Document Shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com)
   The Responsible Area Director is Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com)  


(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.

   I have reviewed the document several times during its development. 
   The document is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

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

  No. The document has been reviewed many times by the PWE3 and PALs WGs.
   
(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.

   There are no parts of the draft that require further review or the help of a 
   MIB doctor.
   
(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 specific 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?

 
 An IPR poll was conducted in the PALs list. Each author responded that they
 were not aware of any relevant IPR. There were no other responses.

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

   There is one IPR declaration (1911) raised in November 2012 against
   an early version of the draft. There was no discussion in the WG
   related to 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?

  I believe the draft represents working group consensus. The document has 
  been reviewed many times by the PWE3 and PALs WGs and received a number 
  of WG last call comments in PALS which were addressed by the authors. There
  was considerable support shown for the draft during WG last call.

(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.)

  None indicated.

(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.

   The document passes ID Nits. There are no relevant warnings.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   The document does not require any further formal review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

   Yes. The references section is split into Normative and Informative sections. 
   These are appropriate. 

(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. All normative references are to published 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 downward normative 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 make any changes to the status of existing RFCs. 

(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 IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document.
   There are no IANA requests, since this document simply reuses an existing code
   point (the PW Preferential Forwarding Status Bit).  

(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.

  There are no new IANA registries.
   

(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.

   There are no sections written in a formal language that would require
   further checks.
Back