Shepherd writeup
rfc6934-05

draft-ietf-ancp-pon-04.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(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?

   Informational.
   
   This is appropriate as the draft describes the applicability of existing ANCP
   mechanisms in RFC6320 to a PON environment. It does not specify new protocol
   elements.
   
   The intended status is properly indicated.

(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 purpose of this document is to provide applicability of the
     Access Node Control mechanism to PON-based broadband access. The
     need for an Access Node Control mechanism between a Network
     Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node Complex (a combination of
     Optical Line Termination (OLT) and Optical Network Termination
     (ONT) elements) is described in a multi-service reference
     architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service-related and
     Subscriber-related operations. The Access Node Control mechanism
     is also extended for interaction between components of the Access
     Node Complex (OLT and ONT).


Working Group Summary

    The ANCP working group was originally chartered only to cover DSL access
   technologies. It's application to PON was only added as a result of this 
   draft being introduced. However, there were no issues with reaching consensus
   for this change and, indeed, there was significant support within the working
   group.
   
   The document received two working group last calls. The second was after an initial
   IESG review and as a result of late IPR declaration 1734. No issues were raised about 
   the IPR declaration. 

Document Quality

   The document describes the application of an existing technology (ANCP) to
   a new access technology type (PON). ANCP is deployed for DSL access networks
   today, but is sufficiently generic and extensible to be applicable to other
   access technologies. I do not know of deployments of ANCP for PON. 
   
   
   I have no other concerns about the quality of the document.

   The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review.

     
Personnel

   The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com).
   The responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.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.

  The document shepherd reviewed the document and provided detailed technical
  and editorial comments. This were addressed by the authors before progressing
  the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has 
  been developed within the WG and reviewed over a 
  period of a number of IETFs. 

(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 further review required.

(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 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.

   Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that
   they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance
   with BCP 78 and 79.

(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 declaration (1734) that was made after the original WG last call.
  The document was given a second WG last call as a result of this. There were no issues
  raised as a result of this.
  
(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 am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
    been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. It has been 
    discussed over a period of a number of years, both in face to face IETF meetings
    and on the list. It has also been through two working group last calls. 

(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.

      ID-Nits passes. 
      The ToC appears to be badly formatted   
       This should be fixed before publication.


(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 relevant formal review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes

(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

(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.

  No 

(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 change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

   There are no IANA actions.

(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 IANA actions.

(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 containing formal language that needs reviewing.
Back