Application of Ethernet Pseudowires to MPLS Transport Networks
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-04

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Gonzalo Camarillo on 20-Jul-2009 includes a
  few things that should be considered:

  All acronyms need to be expanded on their first use. This includes the
  title and the abstract of the draft.

  Generally, abstracts should not contain references. I suggest removing
  the reference to RFC 4448 from it.

[Ballot discuss]
Discuss-Discuss

Despite the fact that I *hate* the concept of a Discuss-Discuss, I want
to have a discussion on the telechat with the rest of the IESG before
we proceed with this draft. I hope to remove this part of the Discuss
during the call without the need for involvement of the document
shepherd or the authors.

The MPLS-TP work is pretty sensistive both from inter-SDO politics and
for commercial reasons. This draft dates back to a time before the
current cooperative agreement between the IETF and ITU-T to work jointly
on MPLS-TP. The draft was originally conceived to demonstrate that (some
of) the requirements of MPLS-TP could be met using existing MPLS and
pseudowire tools.

It has been last called on the PWE3 WG mailing list, and was also last
called to the MPLS WG list, but it did not form part of the MPLS-TP
effort.

I want to be sure that this work is necessary and politically advisable,
as well not conflicting with the MPLS-TP work. This is notwithstanding
the text in Section 1 that says:

  It is recognised that
  it is possible to design a more efficient method of satisfying the
  requirements, and the IETF anticipates that improved solutions will
  be proposed in the future.

- - - -

Discuss

Section 1 references requirements 30 and 31 in I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-
requirements. The requirements numbering must have changed since
this was written. You probably mean 31 and 32.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS which I plan to clear after or during the telechat after making sure that the IESG debated all aspects of the decision to approve this RFC as Informational. Sections 2, 3 and 4 seem to include normative text, requirements, and even more - usage of control words, provisioning methods, etc. I understand that requirements in PWE3 are being described by Informational RFCs in PWE3 but in this case we are discussing about using PWE3 trnasport for MPLS-TP. Are we not going to be in the situation that these documents need to be PS or BCP?

draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-04.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 ?        forwading 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 ?
        went through last call in both PWE3 and MPLS working groups.



    (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.

    (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?


        The document passes ID nits.
        This document is not subject to MIB doctor or other reviews.

    (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. There is a 
normative references ?      to a draft from the BFD working group 
that are currently in IESG review.
      The dependency is:  draft-ietf-bfd-base-09.txt,
      This draft will need to be held for publication in the RFC 
Editor's queue until the BFD draft has been approved.


    (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. It does not request any 
new allocations.


    (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

  A requirement has been identified by the operator community for the
    transparent carriage of the MPLS(-TP) network of one party over the
    MPLS(-TP) network of another party.  This document describes a 
method
    of satisfying this need using the existing PWE3 Ethernet pseudowire
    standard RFC4448.

    This document is a product of the PWE3 working group.

    This document is INFORMATIONAL.

Working Group Summary

The draft originated as a response to the work that was then going on 
in the ITU to apply
MPLS to transport networks. It reflected a desire to illustrate how 
IETF defined
pseudowires could be applied to the problem of packet transport. Since 
that time,
the development of MPLS-TP has proceeded in the IETF in close 
cooperation with
the ITU-T. This draft addresses a sub-set of the MPLS-TP requirements 
using a limited
set of existing MPLS and Pseudowire functionality, as defined in the 
IETF, but is not
intended as a comprehensive standard for MPLS-TP per-se. The draft was 
widely reviewed
by participants in the IETF MPLS-TP effort, as well as the MPLS and 
PWE3 WGs.

Document Quality
There are no concerns about protocol quality. There are understood to 
be implementations of this protocol.

Personnel
  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

  Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com)

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
  Ralph Droms