Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Implementation Experience
draft-haleplidis-forces-implementation-experience-03

[Ballot comment]
In this text:

3.3.  Model

  The model inherently is very dynamic.

What "model"?  The Forces data model?

More generally, I agree with Jari's comment about the content of the document.  I learned a little about potential issues in implementing the struct component (but no details).  Are there any other major implementation issues aside from struct components and handling protocol messages?

[Ballot comment]
2.  NAT issues.  ForCES can be deployed everywhere and can run over
      SCTP/IP.  In order for the FE and CE to work behind NATs you must
      ensure that the TML ports are forwarded and that the firewall
      allows SCTP through.

This seems to be mixing NAT and firewall issues. Clearly, support NATs
requires for those NATs to be capable of handling SCTP traffic to begin
with. In addition, firewalls may have to be configured to let the traffic
through.

I found Section 3.3 very hard to understand for someone who is not
closely familiar with the Forces technology.

I don't understand why we need sections that talk about very generic topics,
like 3.4.2 that describes how to decode a protocol message.

And maybe more generally, I'm not sure what I learned from this document
in terms of real forces implementation experience. Where are the difficult
areas? Is the spec broken in places? Are there interoperability problems?
Is further work needed in some issue?

[Ballot comment]
Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs should take the security
  considerations of the Forwarding and Control Element Separation
  Framework [RFC3746] and the Forwarding and Control Element Separation
  Protocol [RFC5810] into account.

Why is this a should and not a must?

[Ballot discuss]
This should be an easy discuss to clear, probably via an RFC
editor note, if anything at all is needed.

Is the optional KeyInfo TLV used for a cryptographic key?
(Sorry, reviewing offline;-) If so, are there any special
implementation concerns that have arisen?  For example, sometimes, in
high security environments, one has to handle key values in special
memory.  If that might applu but the details are not currently known
(e.g. if no-one has tried to do a high assurance implementation) then
just saying so in the security considerations would be fine and I'd
clear on that basis.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (ForCES Implementation Experience Draft) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'ForCES Implementation Experience Draft'
  as an
Informational RFC

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 2011-05-03. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haleplidis-forces-implementation-experience/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haleplidis-forces-implementation-experience/

Proto Write-up

This proto write up is for the document "ForCES Implementation
Experience" draft-haleplidis-forces-implementation-experience

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
      document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
      version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd is Adrian Farrel .
The shepherd has personally reviewed the document and believes it is
ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The draft has been presented and been discussed on the ForCES mailing
list and at IETF meetings. The WG does not object to the publication
of this document, but feels it falls outside the core interests of the
WG.

The Document Shepherd feels the breadth of the reviews that have
been performed were sufficient.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No - there are no concerns that the document requires additional
broader review.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

The document shepherd is not aware of specific concerns or issues with
this document.

No IPR has been disclosed, and the document shepherd is not aware of
any IPR concerns.

  (1.e)  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?

This is not a working group submission.

There is no objection from any member of the WG. The WG understands
the contents of the document.

The WG does not object to the publication of this document, but feels
it falls outside the core interests of the WG.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

The shepherd is not aware of any discontent related to this document.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

No nits. No formal sections needing review.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

All references are appropriately split.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

This document has no IANA actions

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

There are no known outstanding technical or editorial issues related to
the above issues.

    (1.k)
Technical Summary

  This document captures the experience of implementing
  the ForCES protocol and model.  Its aim is to help others by
  providing examples and possible strategies for implementing the
  ForCES protocol.

Working Group Summary

  The document has been presented and discussed in the WG and there
  has been no disagreement in the WG for the publication of this draft
  from any WG member. It was initially submitted as a WG document but
  was eventually suggested by the WG to be an individual submission
  because it feels that the document falls outside the core interests
  of the WG.

Document Quality

  This is an Informational I-D. The document has been reviewed by the
  ForCES WG.

Personnel

  Adrian Farrel (adrian.farrel@huawei.com) is the document shepherd
  and the responsible Area Director.