Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation
draft-ietf-pwe3-aii-aggregate-02

[Ballot comment]
>    Jeff Sugimoto
>    Nortel Networks
>    3500 Carling Ave.
>    Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
>    e-mail: sugimoto@nortel.com

  Not listed on first page?

[Ballot discuss]
>  [MP-BGP-AUTO-DISC], "Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery
>        Mechanism for Layer-3 and Layer-2 VPNs", Ould-Brahim, H. et
>        al, draft- ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-06.txt, June 2005

  DISCUSS: DOWNREF - this draft is going for Informational. From how it
  is cited (as an example), it looks like the reference can simply be
  reclassified as Informative.

IANA Last Call Comments:

The IANA Section of this document (or indeed this
whole document) is not clear on the actual naming
of this registry entry. I'm made a guess based on
the existing registry entries and the text in this
document.


Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following changes in the "Pseudo Wires Name
Spaces (PWE3)" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters

sub-registry "Attachment Individual Identifier
Type Registry"

First action:

OLD:
AII Type Length Description Reference
-------- ------ ---------------- ---------
0x02 Reserved [PWE3WG]

NEW:
AII Type Length Description Reference
-------- ------ ---------------- ---------
0x02 variable Aggregate Identifier [RFC-pwe3-aii-aggregate-02]
12 or 16


We understand the above to be the only IANA
Actions for this document.

PROTO Write-up

(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?

Danny McPherson (danny@tcb.net) is the Shepherd. I have reviewed the document and it is ready 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?

This document has been reviewed by the WG, both through the LC process, and at IETF WG meetings. There were no comments during the two week LC that has completed. I have no concerns about state of readiness of this 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?

I have no concerns regarding the requirement for further review of this document.

    (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.

I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or Responsible AD.

    (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?

This document is fully understood and supported by the PWE3 WG.  There is no contention as to whether this work provides and it is generally supported across 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 one has indicated to the WG chairs or WG mailing list that they have intentions of appealing any proposed publication of this document.

    (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?

Yes.  As a matter of fact, an updated correcting ID nits was required by the chairs before we'd send this request.

I do believe the downref option pointed out by idnits is a valid recommendation as the referenced document is INFORMATIONAL
AND it's referenced in an informational context.  Also, the reference
to the current ID there has a typo (there's a gratuitous whitespace just after 'draft-' in the reference) AND it needs to be updated to point to the the current -08 version of the draft:

--------------
idnits 2.03.11

tmp/draft-ietf-pwe3-aii-aggregate-02.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC
4748:
    Nothing found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-
guidelines.txt:
  - No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
    Standard

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
    Nothing found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
    Nothing found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  - Possible downref: Draft Normative Reference: ref. 'MP-BGP-AUTO- DISC'

    Summary: 0 errors, 2 warnings
--------------

    (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?

Yes, although only Normative references exists (in section 9) and no informative were provided in the current version.  An Informative References section needs to be added and the updated reference to MP-BGP-AUTO-DISC needs to be provided there rather than in the Normative references section.

          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].

Of the three Normative References only one is not a Standards Track or BCP RFC, and it's currently in the RFC Editor Queue as Proposed Standard.  Once MP-BGP-AUTO-DISC is moved to an Informative References section there should be no issue here.

    (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 suggested a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See
          [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

The IANA section requests a value from the Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Type registry defined in RFC 4446.  The requested value us 0x02.  This value is currently reserved by the PWE3 WG for this purpose, as currently outlined in the IANA registry:

  0x02            Reserved                                    [PWE3WG]


    (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?

Not applicable.

    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary

The signaling protocols used to establish point-to-point pseudowires include type-length-value (TLV) fields that identify pseudowire endpoints called attachment individual identifiers (AII). This document defines AII structures in the form of new AII TLV fields that support AII aggregation for improved scalability.

          Working Group Summary

This document has been reviewed by the experts in the PWE3 WG and there are no outstanding issues.

          Protocol Quality

This is a very simple and well written extension to the PWE3 signaling protocol. No protocol issues are anticipated.

          Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Danny McPherson (danny@tcb.net)

              Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Mark Townsley (townsley@cisco.com)