Skip to main content

Using a Generic Associated Channel Label as a Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification Channel Indicator
RFC 7708

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-11-24
06 (System) RFC published
2015-11-24
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7708">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2015-11-16
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7708">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2015-11-16
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-10-22
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-10-21
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal.shepherd@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2015-10-07
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-10-06
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-10-06
06 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-10-06
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-10-05
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-10-05
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2015-10-05
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-10-05
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-10-05
06 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2015-10-05
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2015-09-24
06 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-09-24
06 Stewart Bryant IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-09-24
06 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-06.txt
2015-09-20
05 Dan Romascanu Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu.
2015-09-17
05 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-09-17
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-09-17
05 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART comments from Dan Romascanu (I believe the points were agreed) still need to lead to edits in a new version of …
[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART comments from Dan Romascanu (I believe the points were agreed) still need to lead to edits in a new version of this draft.
2015-09-17
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-09-17
05 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-09-16
05 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-09-16
05 Alia Atlas
[Ballot comment]
1) In the last paragraph of Section 3: " Note that the inclusion of a GAL following the PW LSE over a label …
[Ballot comment]
1) In the last paragraph of Section 3: " Note that the inclusion of a GAL following the PW LSE over a label
  switched path subject to Equal-Cost Multi-path (ECMP) load balancing
  can cause the OAM packet to take a different path through the network
  from the corresponding PW data packets.  If that is not acceptable,
  then an alternative VCCV type needs to be used."

Since the GAL is a Reserved label, it should not be included in a hash done for load-balancing.  This is
described in RFC 7325 Sec 2.4.5.1 bullet 3 " Special-purpose labels (label values 0-15) MUST NOT be used.
Extended special-purpose labels (any label following label 15) MUST NOT be used.  In particular, GAL and
RA MUST NOT be used so that OAM traffic follows the same path as payload packets with the same label stack."

Please correct the paragraph to add this reference.  I know that there may be old implementations out
there that do the wrong thing - but an RFC should refer to the correct behavior.

The sentence in Section 7 " Attention is drawn to the possible absence of fate sharing between PW
  data packets and VCCV CC Type 4 packets described in Section 3 and
  Section 4." will also need updating.

2)  The use of LSE as an unintroduced abbreviation is slightly confusing.  Can you please expand it the first time
to Label Stack Entry?
2015-09-16
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-09-16
05 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-09-16
05 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-09-15
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-09-15
05 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
A minor question ... I was somewhat surprised to see this statement.

1.  Introduction

  o  Some operators are concerned that the inclusion …
[Ballot comment]
A minor question ... I was somewhat surprised to see this statement.

1.  Introduction

  o  Some operators are concerned that the inclusion of the PW CW will
      increase the PW packet size.
     
It seems like the working group would know whether that's true (so, something like "The increase in PW packet size due to the inclusion of the PW CW will cause problems X, Y, and Z"), or it's not.

Is it true? If so, the issue isn't that operators believe there's a problem, but that there's really a problem.
2015-09-15
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-09-15
05 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-09-14
05 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-09-14
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-09-14
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-09-14
05 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
Is there a particular reason to request that the assigned MPLS VCCV CC Type be bit 3?
2015-09-14
05 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-09-11
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2015-09-11
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2015-09-09
05 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-09-17
2015-09-09
05 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-09-09
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2015-09-09
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-09-09
05 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2015-09-09
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2015-09-09
05 Deborah Brungard Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-09-08
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-09-04
05 Dan Romascanu Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu.
2015-09-01
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-09-01
05 Michelle Cotton
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the MPLS VCCV Control Channel (CC) Types subregistry of the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

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

a new control channel type will be registered as follows:

Bit (Value): [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Type 4: GAL
Reference: [ RFc-to-be ]

Second, in the Status Code Name Space of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

a new status code is to be registered as follows:

Range/Value: 0x000000xx
E: 0
Description: VCCV Type Error
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2015-09-01
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2015-09-01
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2015-08-27
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2015-08-27
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2015-08-27
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dave Cridland
2015-08-27
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dave Cridland
2015-08-25
05 Matthew Bocci
Document Shepherd Write-Up

    draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05.txt


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is …
Document Shepherd Write-Up

    draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05.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 the usage of the Generic Associated
Channel Label (GAL) in a new context (a pseudowire signaled using tLDP) and also
makes additions to the VCCV channel type negotiation procedures defined in RFC5885
for the GAL, along with a new code point from the MPLS VCCV CC Types IANA registry,
which requires IETF consensus. 

(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 specifies a new Virtual Circuit Connectivity
  Verification (VCCV) (RFC5085) control channel type for use with
  pseudowires (PW) carried over an MPLS network.  This new channel type
  uses the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) (RFC5586) to
  distinguish VCCV packets from packets carrying user data. Although the use
  of the GAL on PWs in MPLS-TP is defined in RFC6423, this draft specifies
  the necessary extensions to VCCV to support the GAL on PWs setup and maintained
  using targeted LDP (tLDP).


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
  debate in PWE3 was whether earlier control channel types (e.g. Router Alert) that do
  not use the control word should be deprecated in favour of the use of the GAL. This
  was resolved through the implementation survey described in RFC7079, which
  showed that there were significant deployments of both pseudowires
  using Router Alert or TTL expiry as the VCCV Channel Type. This draft therefore
  does not deprecate other channel types, but rather provides a clear order of
  precedence when more than one channel type is supported.

Document Quality:

  There are multiple implementations of the GAL for MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs. Many
  implementations of the LDP extensions for negotiating the use of the existing
  VCCV control channel on a targeted LDP signalled PW are also known to exist.
  The document has also been widely reviewed by the original authors of and
  contributors to VCCV (RFC5085).
 

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. There
  were a couple of outstanding minor typographical errors  at the time of v03
  that I made the authors aware of. 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 received a number
  of WG last call comments in PALS which were addressed by the authors. The document
was also reviewed within the Routing Area Directorate. It received some detailed comments
that were addressed by the authors.
 
(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 are no IPR declarations against this draft.

(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 WG 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. Note that
  although the draft does add a channel type to VCCV, defined in RFC5085, it does
  not deprecate or otherwise change the status of existing channel types defined in
  RFC5085.

(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 two IANA requests, one for a new channel type code point and one
  for a new LDP status code. The procedures for their use are specified in the body
  of the document.

(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.
2015-08-25
05 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-08-25
05 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <pals@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <pals@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05.txt> (Using A Generic Associated Channel Label as a Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification Channel Indicator) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled
Services WG (pals) to consider the following document:
- 'Using A Generic Associated Channel Label as a Virtual Circuit
  Connectivity Verification Channel Indicator'
  <draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) protocol
  specified in RFC 5085 provides a control channel (CC) that is
  associated with a pseudowire (PW).  This document specifies an
  additional VCCV control channel type to be used with pseudowires (PW)
  which do not use the PW Control Word and which are carried over an
  MPLS network.  This new VCCV CC type uses the Generic Associated
  Channel Label defined in RFC5586 to distinguish VCCV packets from
  packets carrying user data.  This new VCCV CC type introduces
  compatibility with the method of MPLS Label Switched Path Operations,
  Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) identification, particularly in
  MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) networks (RFC5921).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-08-25
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-08-25
05 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2015-08-25
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2015-08-25
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2015-08-25
05 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-08-25
05 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2015-08-10
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-08-10
05 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05.txt
2015-06-19
04 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2015-05-26
04 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-04.txt
2015-05-20
03 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Loa Andersson.
2015-05-18
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-05-13
03 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson
2015-05-13
03 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson
2015-03-25
03 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2015-03-24
03 Cindy Morgan Notification list changed to matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal.shepherd@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org from "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
2015-03-23
03 Andy Malis
Document Shepherd Write-Up

    draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03.txt


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is …
Document Shepherd Write-Up

    draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03.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 the usage of the Generic Associated
Channel Label (GAL) in a new context (a pseudowire signaled using tLDP) and also
makes additions to the VCCV channel type negotiation procedures defined in RFC5885
for the GAL, along with a new code point from the MPLS VCCV CC Types IANA registry,
which requires IETF consensus. 

(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 specifies a new Virtual Circuit Connectivity
  Verification (VCCV) (RFC5085) control channel type for use with
  pseudowires (PW) carried over an MPLS network.  This new channel type
  uses the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) (RFC5586) to
  distinguish VCCV packets from packets carrying user data. Although the use
  of the GAL on PWs in MPLS-TP is defined in RFC6423, this draft specifies
  the necessary extensions to VCCV to support the GAL on PWs setup and maintained
  using targeted LDP (tLDP).


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
  debate in PWE3 was whether earlier control channel types (e.g. Router Alert) that do
  not use the control word should be deprecated in favour of the use of the GAL. This
  was resolved through the implementation survey described in RFC7079, which
  showed that there were significant deployments of both pseudowires
  using Router Alert or TTL expiry as the VCCV Channel Type. This draft therefore
  does not deprecate other channel types, but rather provides a clear order of
  precedence when more than one channel type is supported.

Document Quality:

  There are multiple implementations of the GAL for MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs. Many
  implementations of the LDP extensions for negotiating the use of the existing
  VCCV control channel on a targeted LDP signalled PW are also known to exist.
  The document has also been widely reviewed by the original authors of and
  contributors to VCCV (RFC5085).
 

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. There
  are a couple of outstanding minor typographical errors that I have made the
  authors aware of that I believe can be fixed at the next revision. 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 received a number
  of WG last call comments in PALS which were addressed by the authors.
 
(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 are no IPR declarations against this draft.

(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 WG 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. Note that
  although the draft does add a channel type to VCCV, defined in RFC5085, it does
  not deprecate or otherwise change the status of existing channel types defined in
  RFC5085.

(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 two IANA requests, one for a new channel type code point and one
  for a new LDP status code. The procedures for their use are specified in the body
  of the document.

(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.
2015-03-23
03 Andy Malis Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel
2015-03-23
03 Andy Malis IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-03-23
03 Andy Malis IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-03-23
03 Andy Malis IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-03-23
03 Andy Malis Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2015-03-21
03 Matthew Bocci Changed document writeup
2015-03-06
03 Andy Malis Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2015-03-06
03 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03.txt
2015-03-04
02 Andy Malis Completed WG last call, requires new revision based on comments.
2015-03-04
02 Andy Malis Tags Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2015-03-04
02 Andy Malis IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2015-02-18
02 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-02.txt
2015-01-30
01 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-01.txt
2015-01-27
00 Andy Malis Notification list changed to "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
2015-01-27
00 Andy Malis Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci
2015-01-27
00 Stewart Bryant PWE3 to PALS transition
2015-01-27
00 Stewart Bryant This document now replaces draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal instead of None
2015-01-27
00 Stewart Bryant Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2014-12-17
00 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-00.txt