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 |