Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-13

[Ballot discuss]
I expected the document to include also information about management considerations related to gracefull shutdown. For example sending SNMP notifications i.e. linkDown notifications for shutdown of a TE Link, or of a group of TE Links and some other TBD notification when a node shudown is initiated.

>(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?

Lou Berger is the Document Shepherd.

He has reviewed the document and believe this version is ready for
publication at the intended status.

>(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 document has received adequate review and discussion. It has been
significantly revised to be consistent with WG opinion and other related
activities in the IETF including in the MPLS WG.

>(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.

>(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?

No.

> 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.

Yes. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/523/. There has been no
discussion on this in the WG. (Although the WG was informed of the
disclosure.)

>(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?

Consensus appears to be good.

>(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.)

No threats. No discontent.

>(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.

Yes to all.

>(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative?

Yes.

> Are there normative references to documents that
> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
> state?

No.

> 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].

No downward references.

>
>(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?

Not applicable.

>(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, no checks needed.

>(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.

This document explains usage of existing protocol mechanisms to
support a "Graceful Shutdown" operation.

From the document abstract:

MPLS-TE Graceful Shutdown is a method for explicitly notifying
the nodes in a Traffic Engineering (TE) enabled network that the
TE capability on a link or on an entire Label Switching Router
(LSR) is going to be disabled. MPLS-TE graceful shutdown
mechanisms are tailored toward addressing planned outage in the
network.

This document provides requirements and protocol mechanisms to
reduce/eliminate traffic disruption in the event of a planned
shutdown of a network resource. These operations are equally
applicable to both MPLS and its Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
extensions.


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

The document was significantly revised to be in line with
draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute. Much of the WG discussion focused on
this. Once alignment was agreed upon, there was no significant
disagreements.

> 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?
>


There are no known implementations or planned implementations of this
work.

> Personnel
> Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Lou Berger.
> Who is the
> Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel (to be confirmed)

> If the document requires IANA
> experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
> in this document are .'
>

None needed.