Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc6423-01

draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-01.txt

Document Shepard 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?

	Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com)
        Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for
        forwarding to the IESG.


    (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 document has received adequate review. The document has
        been through two working group last calls, and received a number
        of comments demonstrating that it has been reviewed by a significant
        number of WG participants. The MPLS WG was also notified of the
        WG last call, since this document updates RFC5586 which was
        Produced by the MPLS WG.


    (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 specific concerns.


    (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?

      I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
      been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants.
      Although there were some comments during last call that expressed
      disagreement with the basic principle of using a GAL on PWs, or
     technical issues with the interaction of the GAL with ECMP and VCCV,
     these were resolved.


    (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.)

       None indicated.


    (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. There are a couple of minor I-D nits: one line too long and
       One typo in a reference. There are no formal review criteria.

    (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].

      Yes, the references are split appropriately.



    (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?

      The IANA considerations section exists and seems reasonable.


    (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?

      There are no sections that use a 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

          This document describes the requirements for using the Generic
          Associated Channel Label (GAL) in Pseudowires (PWs) in MPLS-TP	
          networks, and provides an update to the description of GAL usage
          in [RFC5586] by removing the restriction that is imposed on using
          GAL for PWs especially in MPLS-TP environments. This is required
          to allow PWs that do not use a PW control word to be used in MPLS-TP
          and for them to use the full range of MPLS-TP OAM supported by the G-ACh.

          This document is a product of the PWE3 working group.

          This document is STANDARDS TRACK.

Working Group Summary

   Network transport service providers and their users are
   seeking to rationalize their networks by migrating their
   existing services and platforms onto IP or MPLS enabled
   IP packet switched networks (PSN). This migration requires
   communications services that can emulate the essential
   properties of traditional communications links over a PSN.
   Some service providers wish to use MPLS technology to
   replace existing transport network infrastructure, relying
   upon pseudowire technology is an integral component of
   these network convergence architectures.

   Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) will specify the
   encapsulation, transport, control, management, interworking
   and security of services emulated over IETF-specified PSNs.

Document Quality

   There are no concerns with document quality.


Back