(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?
Proposed Standard.
The title page header says Standard Track.
(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 describes a method for generating an aggregated
pseudowire status message on Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
network Label Switched Path (LSP).
The method for transmitting the pseudowire (PW) status information is
not new, however this protocol extension allows a Service Provider
(SP) to reliably monitor the individual PW status while not
overwhelming the network with multiple periodic status messages. This
is achieved by sending a single cumulative summary status
verification message for all the PWs grouped in the same LSP.
Working Group Summary
The working groups has been working on this for about five years. It
has discussed it a number of times and supports publication.
Document Quality
This is a well written document.
There has been industry interest but we are not sure how widely
it has been implimented. It is not uncommon in this area
for RFC to preceed implementation.
Personnel
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.
I have read every word of the text, and gave feedback to the
authors before issing the WG LC on the updated version.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I am satisfied that this document as 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.
There is nothing special about this documnet that needs other
than the normal directorate reviews as the next stage.
(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 about publishing 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 is one IPR disclosure. This does not seem to concern the
WG.
(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 has discussed this document on a number of occasions
and supports publication.
(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 one has threatened an appeal.
(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 are no meaningful 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.
Not applicable
(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?
All normative references have been published.
(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).
The IANA section has been checked and it seems to be correct.
(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.
New registries:
PW status refresh reduction Control Messages
PW status refresh reduction Configuration Message Sub-TLVs
PW status refresh reduction Notification Codes
Require the appointmnet of experts.
Any of the long term PW experts could do this. These will
be well known to our AD.
(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.