(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?
We request publication as Proposed Standard. This is corerctly
indicated in the title page 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 specifies a fast mechanism for protecting pseudowires
against egress endpoint failures, including egress attachment circuit
failure, egress PE failure, multi-segment PW terminating PE failure,
and multi-segment PW switching PE failure. Operating on the basis of
multi-homed CE, redundant PWs, upstream label assignment and context
specific label switching, the mechanism enables local repair to be
performed by the router upstream adjacent to a failure. The router
can restore a PW in the order of tens of milliseconds, by rerouting
traffic around the failure to a protector through a pre-established
bypass tunnel. Therefore, the mechanism can be used to reduce
traffic loss before global repair reacts to the failure and the
network converges on the topology changes due to the failure.
Working Group Summary
This has been reviewed by the WG and there is nothing contentious in
it. There have been a number of attempts at designing a more general
colution in the MPLS WG, but none have reached this level of
maturity, and it is therefore appropriate to publish this pseudowire
specific solution.
Document Quality
This is a well written document. I do not anticipate any interworking
issues between independent implementations.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Stewart Bryant 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.
This document has been reviewed by the Shepherd and is ready for
consideration by the responsible AD.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I beleive that the document has been adequately reviewed.
(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.
The IETF standard review process should be adequate for this document.
(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 concerns regarding the publication of this document.
(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.
Yes they have.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There have been a number of IPR filings, but no one has expressed
any concerns. There have been many similar IPR disclosures against
other PALS (formerly PWE3) documents and these have never been
problematic.
(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?
The WG as a body understands and supports this technology.
(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.)
The shepherd is not aware of any threatened appeal, or significant
discontent with the document.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
There were no ID nits reported by the checker.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no formal reviews required for this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes they have.
(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?
There are no unpublished normative references.
(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 downrefs.
(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.
It will not change the status of any other document.
(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).
IANA has already allocated a codepoint to this draft. This early
allocation has technically expired, but in this case confirming
the allocation is clearly in the best interests of the Internet.
(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 none.
(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.
Not applicable.