Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Message Formats for Label Switched Path (LSP) Attributes Objects
draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02

[Ballot comment]
I want to build on two comments that were originally offered in the
  Gen-ART Review by Vijay Gurbani on 17-Oct-2011.

  Section 2 includes an group of indented paragraphs, and all but one of
  those paragraphs contains an RFC 2119 key word.  Please consider making
  the "must" in that paragraph into "MUST".

  Section 3 includes an group of indented paragraphs, and all but one of
  those paragraphs contains an RFC 2119 key word.  Please consider making
  the "must" in that paragraph into "MUST".

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (LSP Attributes Related Routing Backus-Naur Form) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'LSP Attributes Related Routing Backus-Naur Form'
  as a 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 2011-10-10. 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

  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
  established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
  Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions may be signaled with a set of LSP
  specific attributes.  These attributes may be carried in both Path
  and Resv messages.  This document specifies how LSP attribute are
  to be carried in RSVP Path and Resv messages using the Routing
  Backus-Naur Form, and clarifies related Resv message formats.
  This document updates RFC 4875 and RFC 5420.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

PROTO-write-up for: draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02.txt
Intended status: Standards Track

(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?

Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd.
She has 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?

Yes. No concerns.

(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 concerns or additional review needed.

(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.

No concerns or issues.

(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?

There is solid consensus behind this document.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist
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?

Yes. No issues identified by idnits. No other reviews are required.

(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].

Split looks good.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration 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 [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

No new IANA assignments.

(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?

Yes.

(1.k) 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
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions may be signaled with a set of LSP
specific attributes. These attributes may be carried in both Path
and Resv messages. This document specifies how LSP attribute are
to be carried in RSVP Path and Resv messages using the Routing
Backus-Naur Form, and clarifies related Resv message formats.
This document updates RFC 4875 and RFC 5420.

Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

No. The document is considered to be both stable and
complete.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

No implementations have been publicly discussed.