Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-09

[Ballot comment]
I have no problem with the approval of this document which I consider useful and well-written. There are however a few terminology and references issues which need to be fixed before publication:

1. The document uses several times the term Ethernet Spanning Tree. This is incorrect from an IEEE 802 point of view, as Spanning Tree is designed to work with multiple 802 protocols, not only with Ethernet. I suggest that this term is replaced wherever it appears by Spanning Tree running on Ethernet or just Spanning Tree.

2. There are some abbreviations missing - one is very obvious I-TAG - it should be included in the abbreviations list especially as S-TAG is included already

3. Same as for #1 in section 6 the first phrase says "Link discovery was specified for Ethernet ..." this is not accurate as link discovery was specified for links interconnecting IEEE 802.1 bridges, it runs on Ethernet but not only on Ethernet

4. A number of IEEE 802.1 references have progressed since the references section was written - among them IEEE 802.1 Qay and IEEE 802.1AE were approved as standards

Intended status: Informational

(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 personally reviewed the I-D 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 I-D has had a good level of discussion and review. Several liaisons
were exchanged with IEEE and MEF during CCAMP's Ethernet work to ensure
compatibility and cooperation between the SDOs, e.g.:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file396.txt
http://ccamp.labn.net/old_ccamp/IEEE_240707.txt

(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.

(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. No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(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?

WG consensus is solid.

(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 threats.

(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?

All checks made.

(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].

References split. No downrefs.

(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?

This is an Informational I-D that makes no requests of IANA.
A null IANA section is included.

(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?

No formal language is used.

(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.

There has been significant recent work in increasing the capabilities
of Ethernet switches and Ethernet forwarding models. As a consequence,
the role of Ethernet is rapidly expanding into "transport networks" that
previously were the domain of other technologies such as Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH),
Time-Division
Multiplex (TDM) and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM). This document
defines
an architecture and framework for a Generalized GMPLS based control
plane for
Ethernet in this "transport network" capacity. GMPLS has already been
specified for similar technologies. Some additional extensions to the
GMPLS
control plane are needed and this document provides a framework for
these
extensions.

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.

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?

This document is informational.