IANA Allocation Procedures for the GMPLS OTN Signal Type Registry
RFC 7892
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2016-06-01
|
05 | (System) | IANA registries were updated to include RFC7892 |
|
2016-05-27
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2016-05-26
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7892">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2016-05-23
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7892">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2016-05-02
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2016-05-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2016-05-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2016-04-28
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2016-04-21
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2016-04-21
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2016-04-21
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
|
2016-03-23
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Al Morton. |
|
2016-03-17
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2016-03-17
|
05 | Matt Hartley | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2016-03-17
|
05 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-05.txt |
|
2016-03-17
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2016-03-17
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2016-03-16
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2016-03-16
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2016-03-16
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2016-03-16
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2016-03-16
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I had a DISCUSS on the registration policy, but Lou has put forth this alternative, which comes from earlier discussions: "Standards Action" … [Ballot comment] I had a DISCUSS on the registration policy, but Lou has put forth this alternative, which comes from earlier discussions: "Standards Action" for Standards Track documents, and "Specification Required" for other documents. The designated expert is any current CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, designated by the IESG. Happily clearing the DISCUSS with that text on the table. Thanks. |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] This is DISCUSS because I'm not sure the instructions will be clear to IANA. This document requests that the "OTN Signal Type" … [Ballot discuss] This is DISCUSS because I'm not sure the instructions will be clear to IANA. This document requests that the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry be updated with the following registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC5226]. As we've talked about in response to Álvaro's review, this should say "Standards Action" or "Specification Required" With "or", not "and". It also wouldn't be a bad thing to follow Álvaro's suggestion of adding the conditions, such as: "Standards Action" or "Specification Required", with the latter used in the case of registration requests that do not come from IETF documents. The existing "and" makes it sound like a designated expert will do a review of the specification even when it falls under Standards Action, and that's not what's intended. |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | This is the document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, … This is the document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04 (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? This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document. This is appropriate because the document describes an update of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signals as specified in [RFC7139] as defined in [RFC 5226]. This track is noted in the document header. (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 updates [RFC7139] to allow the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to also support Specification Required policies, as defined in [RFC5226]. Working Group Summary: This document has been reviewed in the CCAMP working group and received comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. There were no problems with consensus for this document. Document Quality: The document is concise and provides proper justification for the update of the OTN Signal Type registry. Personnel: Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director (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. The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the document. He believes it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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. No such content. (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. No such 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? The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No disclosures have been made. (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? See (2). There has been an extensive review and there is good consensus on the document. (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.) No threats or discontent. (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. No nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such reviews needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All normative and informative references are identified correctly. (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? None such. (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. None such. (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. No issues. (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 the most important part of this document. It is concise and appropriate. However to provide more clarity on the update process I propose to replace the text: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required" by: "Standards Action" or "Specification Required" (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. Guidance for future updates is provided. (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 such sections. |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2016-03-15
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2016-03-14
|
04 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2016-03-14
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2016-03-14
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2016-03-14
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] The Shepherd's writeup should be updated. The document doesn't register any new types, it just updates the registration policy. I find the description … [Ballot comment] The Shepherd's writeup should be updated. The document doesn't register any new types, it just updates the registration policy. I find the description of the updated registration policies confusing. The text reads: "…updated with the following registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required"…" What does the "and" of these two policies mean? I see [1] that the WG Chair had proposed: "IANA section needs to be updated indicating the registry and the following registration policies: "Standards Action" (for Standards Track documents) and "Specification Required" (for other documents). ", but even though there were only positive comments in reply, the document did not adopt that text. It might be just me who finds the current text not obvious as IANA seems to not have a problem with it either [2]. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4PRR2n5zqABNrDMhJje_raPE6Qw [2] Message sent to the authors and IESG only. |
|
2016-03-14
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2016-03-14
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2016-03-14
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2016-03-13
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2016-03-11
|
04 | Vijay Gurbani | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani. |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot comment] Updated from Last Call version for Secdir review. |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-03-17 |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Matt Hartley | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2016-03-10
|
04 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04.txt |
|
2016-03-10
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
|
2016-03-09
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-03-09
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.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-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. IANA understands that this document requests that the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/ will be updated with the following registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required" as defined in RFC5226. When needed, the Designated Expert shall be any current CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, designated by the IESG. When needed, IANA will work with the IESG to identify the Designated Expert. The reference for the subregistry will be updated to reflect that [ RFC-to-be ] made this change to the subregistry registration policy. IANA understands that this is the only action 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
|
2016-03-03
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
|
2016-03-03
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
|
2016-03-03
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2016-03-03
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2016-02-29
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-02-29
|
03 | 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: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, … 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: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, huubatwork@gmail.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry@ietf.org, "Huub van Helvoort" <huubatwork@gmail.com> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.txt> (IANA Allocation Procedures for OTN Signal Type Subregistry of the GMPLS Signaling Parameters Registry) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'IANA Allocation Procedures for OTN Signal Type Subregistry of the GMPLS Signaling Parameters Registry' <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.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 2016-03-14. 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 IANA has defined an "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry. This draft updates the OTN Signal Type subregistry to allow Specification Required policies, as defined in RFC 5226. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2016-02-29
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2016-02-29
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
|
2016-02-29
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-02-29
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2016-02-29
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
|
2016-02-29
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-02-10
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet … Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02 (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? This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document. This is appropriate because the document describes the extension of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signals defined in [RFC4328] and [RFC7139] with additional signal types mentioned in ITU-T G.Sup43. This track is noted in the document header. (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: The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has defined normative OTN Signal Types in G.709. These OTN Signal Types are registered by RFC7139. The ITU-T has also defined non-normative OTN Signal Types in G.Sup43. This document registers these additional OTN Signal Types. Working Group Summary: This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. There were no problems with consensus for this document. Document Quality: The document is concise and provides proper justification for the extension of the OTN Signal Type registry. Personnel: Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director (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. The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the document and has found nits, see (11). After addressing these nits he believes it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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. No such content. (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. No such 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? The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. The links to the disclosures can be found in the comments (history) of the document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No disclosures have been made. (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? See (2). There has been a good review and there is good consensus on the document. (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.) No threats or discontent. (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. Fix nits errors: Security considerations section is not required. In Abstract s/[RFC5226]/RFC 5226/ Fix nits warning: Because G.Sup43 has been approved and published the following change should be made in section 4.2 (this will also align it with the reference present in section 1) OLD: [GSUP.43] ITU-T, "Proposed revision of G.sup43 (for agreement)", February, 2011. NEW: [G.Sup43] ITU-T, “Transport of IEEE 10GBASE-R in optical transport networks (OTN)”, February, 2011. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such reviews needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All normative references are identified correctly. The Informative Reference has been approved and published. (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? None such. (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. None such. (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. No issues. (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 the most important part of this document. It is concise and appropriate. (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. The additional subregistries are identified properly. (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 such sections. |
|
2016-02-10
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2016-02-10
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
|
2016-02-10
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD status cleared. A new version has been published addressing the AD, Chairs ans WG issues |
|
2016-02-10
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD cleared. |
|
2016-02-02
|
03 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.txt |
|
2016-01-27
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. |
|
2016-01-27
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2016-01-27
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation |
|
2016-01-25
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-07
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet … Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02 (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? This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document. This is appropriate because the document describes the extension of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signals defined in [RFC4328] and [RFC7139] with additional signal types mentioned in ITU-T G.Sup43. This track is noted in the document header. (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: The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has defined normative OTN Signal Types in G.709. These OTN Signal Types are registered by RFC7139. The ITU-T has also defined non-normative OTN Signal Types in G.Sup43. This document registers these additional OTN Signal Types. Working Group Summary: This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. There were no problems with consensus for this document. Document Quality: The document is concise and provides proper justification for the extension of the OTN Signal Type registry. Personnel: Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director (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. The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the document and has found nits, see (11). After addressing these nits he believes it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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. No such content. (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. No such 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? The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. The links to the disclosures can be found in the comments (history) of the document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No disclosures have been made. (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? See (2). There has been a good review and there is good consensus on the document. (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.) No threats or discontent. (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. Fix nits errors: Security considerations section is not required. In Abstract s/[RFC5226]/RFC 5226/ Fix nits warning: Because G.Sup43 has been approved and published the following change should be made in section 4.2 (this will also align it with the reference present in section 1) OLD: [GSUP.43] ITU-T, "Proposed revision of G.sup43 (for agreement)", February, 2011. NEW: [G.Sup43] ITU-T, “Transport of IEEE 10GBASE-R in optical transport networks (OTN)”, February, 2011. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such reviews needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All normative references are identified correctly. The Informative Reference has been approved and published. (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? None such. (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. None such. (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. No issues. (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 the most important part of this document. It is concise and appropriate. (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. The additional subregistries are identified properly. (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 such sections. |
|
2016-01-07
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-01-07
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2016-01-07
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-07
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-07
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-12-10
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2015-12-10
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Notification list changed to "Huub van Helvoort" <huubatwork@gmail.com> |
|
2015-12-10
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Document shepherd changed to Huub van Helvoort |
|
2015-12-10
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2015-10-27
|
02 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/RDyu5HikSavUredhzGb_QAORDdc AUTHORS Fatai Zhang Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Fr4u446tLWnJWBeX2x6BXtQoPIo Zafar Ali … IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/RDyu5HikSavUredhzGb_QAORDdc AUTHORS Fatai Zhang Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Fr4u446tLWnJWBeX2x6BXtQoPIo Zafar Ali Email: zali@cisco.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Y4GVwhcwgPc22TMS_48tlxxoVXo Matt Hartley mhartley@cisco.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/D0mPR81BoDTDRMIqx8dY0T3K3To Antonello Bonfanti abonfant@cisco.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CppNgJeqV16HdYTuvR-laGt6eLc |
|
2015-09-10
|
02 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02.txt |
|
2015-03-09
|
01 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-01.txt |
|
2014-11-21
|
00 | Lou Berger | This document now replaces draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry instead of None |
|
2014-11-12
|
00 | Zafar Ali | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00.txt |