IANA Allocation Procedures for the GMPLS OTN Signal Type Registry
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-05

[Ballot comment]
I had a DISCUSS on the registration policy, but Lou has put forth this alternative, which comes from earlier discussions:

  "Standards Action" for Standards Track documents, and "Specification
  Required" for other documents. The designated expert is any current
  CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, designated
  by the IESG.

Happily clearing the DISCUSS with that text on the table.  Thanks.

[Ballot discuss]
This is DISCUSS because I'm not sure the instructions will be clear to IANA.

  This document requests that the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of
  the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
  Signaling Parameters" registry be updated with the following
  registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification
  Required" as defined in [RFC5226].

As we've talked about in response to Álvaro's review, this should say

  "Standards Action" or "Specification Required"

With "or", not "and".  It also wouldn't be a bad thing to follow Álvaro's suggestion of adding the conditions, such as:

  "Standards Action" or "Specification Required", with the latter used in
  the case of registration requests that do not come from IETF documents.

The existing "and" makes it sound like a designated expert will do a review of the specification even when it falls under Standards Action, and that's not what's intended.

This is the document shepherd write-up for

            draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04

(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?

This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document.

This is appropriate because the document describes an update of
the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Parameters" registry for the OTN signals as specified in [RFC7139]
as defined in [RFC 5226].
This track is noted in the document header.

(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:

This document updates [RFC7139] to allow the "OTN Signal Type"
subregistry to also support Specification Required policies, as
defined in [RFC5226].

Working Group Summary:

This document has been reviewed in the CCAMP working group and
received comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

Document Quality:

The document is concise and provides proper justification for
the update of the OTN Signal Type registry.

Personnel:

Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd
Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

(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 has reviewed the current revision of the
document. He believes it is ready for publication.

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

No concerns.

(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 such content.

(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 such 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?

The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements
that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
    IPR disclosures.

No disclosures have been made.

(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?

See (2).
There has been an extensive review and there is good consensus on the
document.

(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.)

No threats or discontent.

(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.

No nits found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

No such reviews needed.

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

All normative and informative references are identified correctly.

(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?

None such.

(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.

None such.

(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.

No issues.

(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).

The IANA considerations section is the most important part of this
document. It is concise and appropriate.

However to provide more clarity on the update process I propose to
replace the text:  "Standards Action" and "Specification Required"
by:                "Standards Action" or "Specification Required"
(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.

Guidance for future updates is provided.

(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 such sections.

[Ballot comment]
The Shepherd's writeup should be updated.  The document doesn't register any new types, it just updates the registration policy.

I find the description of the updated registration policies confusing.  The text reads: "…updated with the following registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required"…"  What does the "and" of these two policies mean?  I see [1] that the WG Chair had proposed: "IANA section needs to be updated indicating the registry and the following registration policies:  "Standards Action" (for Standards Track documents) and "Specification Required" (for other documents). ", but even though there were only positive comments in reply, the document did not adopt that text. 

It might be just me who finds the current text not obvious as IANA seems to not have a problem with it either [2].

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4PRR2n5zqABNrDMhJje_raPE6Qw
[2] Message sent to the authors and IESG only.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

IANA understands that this document requests that the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/

will be updated with the following registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required" as defined in RFC5226.

When needed, the Designated Expert shall be any current CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, designated by the IESG. When needed, IANA will work with the IESG to identify the Designated Expert.

The reference for the subregistry will be updated to reflect that [ RFC-to-be ] made this change to the subregistry registration policy.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

  The RTSP client SHOULD send the feature tag "setup.ice-d-m" in the
  "Supported" header in all SETUP requests that contain the "D-ICE"
  lower layer transport.

4.5.  Status Codes

  ICE needs two new RTSP response codes to indicate correctly progress
  and errors.

  +------+----------------------------------------------+-------------+
  | Code | Reason                                      | Method      |
  +------+----------------------------------------------+-------------+
  | 150  | Server still working on ICE connectivity    | PLAY        |
  |      | checks                                      |            |
  | 480  | ICE Connectivity check failure              | PLAY, SETUP |
  +------+----------------------------------------------+-------------+

        Table 1: New Status codes and their usage with RTSP methods

4.5.1.  150 ICE connectivity checks in progress

  The 150 response code indicates that ICE connectivity checks are
  still in progress and haven't concluded.  This response SHALL be sent
  within 200 milliseconds of receiving a PLAY request that currently
  can't be fulfilled because ICE connectivity checks are still running.
  Subsequently, every 3 seconds after the previous one was sent, a 150
  reply shall be sent until the ICE connectivity checks conclude either
  successfully or in failure, and a final response for the request can
  be provided.

4.5.2.  480 ICE Processing Failed

  The 480 client error response code is used in cases when the request
  can't be fulfilled due to a failure in the ICE processing, such as
  all the connectivity checks have timed out.  This error message can
  appear either in response to a SETUP request to indicate that no
  candidate pair can be constructed, or in response to a PLAY request
  to indicate that the server's connectivity checks resulted in
  failure.

4.6.  New Reason for PLAY_NOTIFY

  A new value used in the PLAY_NOTIFY methods Notify-Reason header is
  defined: "ice-restart".  This reason indicates that a ICE restart
  needs to happen on the identified resource and session.

  Notify-Reas-val =/ "ice-restart"

Goldberg, et al.          Expires May 19, 2013                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft  A Media NAT Traversal mechanism for RTSP  November 2012

4.7.  Server Side SDP Attribute for ICE Support

  If the server supports the media NAT traversal for RTSP controlled
  sessions as described in this RFC, then the Server SHOULD include the
  "a=rtsp-ice-d-m" SDP attribute in any SDP (if used) describing
  content served by the server.  This is an session level only
  attribute.

  The ABNF [RFC5234] for the "rtsp-ice-d-m" attribute is:

  rtsp-ice-d-m-attr = "a=" "rtsp-ice-d-m"

4.8.  ICE Features Not Required in RTSP

  A number of ICE signalling features are not needed with RTSP and are
  discussed below.

4.8.1.  ICE-Lite

  The ICE-Lite attribute shall not be used in the context of RTSP.  The
  ICE specification describes two implementations of ICE: Full and
  Lite, where hosts that are not behind a NAT are allowed to implement
  only Lite.  For RTSP, the Lite implementation is insufficient because
  it does not cause the media server to send a connectivity check,
  which is used to protect against making the RTSP server a denial of
  service tool.  This document defines another variation implementation
  of ICE, called ICE-RTSP.  It has its own set of simplifications
  suitable to RTSP.  Conceptually, this implementation of ICE-RTSP is
  between ICE-FULL and ICE-LITE for a server and simpler than ICE-FULL
  for clients.

4.8.2.  ICE-Mismatch

  The ice-mismatch parameter indicates that the offer arrived with a
  default destination for a media component that didn't have a
  corresponding candidate attribute.  This is not needed for RTSP as
  the ICE based lower layer transport specification either is supported
  or another alternative transport is used.  This is always explicitly
  indicated in the SETUP request and response.

4.8.3.  ICE Remote Candidate Transport Header Parameter

  The Remote candidate attribute is not needed for RTSP for the
  following reasons.  Each SETUP results in an independent ICE
  processing chain which either fails or results in promoting a single
  candidate pair to usage.  If a new SETUP request for the same media
  is sent, this needs to use a new username fragment and password to
  avoid any race conditions or uncertainty about which round of

Goldberg, et al.          Expires May 19, 2013                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft  A Media NAT Traversal mechanism for RTSP  November 2012

  processing the STUN requests relate to.

5.  Detailed Solution

  This section describes in detail how the interaction and flow of ICE
  works with RTSP messages.

5.1.  Session description and RTSP DESCRIBE (optional)

  The RTSP server should indicate it has support for ICE by sending the
  "a=rtsp-ice-d-m" SDP attribute in the response to the RTSP DESCRIBE
  message if SDP is used.  This allows RTSP clients to only send the
  new ICE exchanges with servers that support ICE thereby limiting the
  overhead on current non-ICE supporting RTSP servers.  When not using
  RTSP DESCRIBE it is still RECOMMENDED to use the SDP attribute for
  the session description.

  A Client can also use the DESCRIBE request to determine explicitly if
  both server and any proxies support ICE.  The client includes the
  "Supported" header with its supported feature tags, including
  "setup.ice-d-m".  Any proxy upon seeing the "Supported" header will
  include the "Proxy-Supported" header with the feature tags it
  supports.  The server will echo back the "Proxy-Supported" header and
  its own version of the Supported header so enabling a client to
  determine if all involved parties support ICE or not.  Note that even
  if a proxy is present in the chain that doesn't indicate support for
  ICE, it may still work.

Goldberg, et al.          Expires May 19, 2013                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft  A Media NAT Traversal mechanism for RTSP  November 2012

  For example:
        C->S: DESCRIBE rtsp://server.example.com/fizzle/foo RTSP/2.0
              CSeq: 312
              User-Agent: PhonyClient 1.2
              Accept: application/sdp, application/example
              Supported: setup.ice-d-m, setup.rtp.rtcp.mux

        S->C: RTSP/2.0 200 OK
              CSeq: 312
              Date: 23 Jan 1997 15:35:06 GMT
              Server: PhonyServer 1.1
              Content-Type: application/sdp
              Content-Length: 367
              Supported: setup.ice-d-m, setup.rtp.rtcp.mux

              v=0
              o=mhandley 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 192.0.2.46
              s=SDP Seminar
              i=A Seminar on the session description protocol
              u=http://www.example.com/lectures/sdp.ps
              e=seminar@example.com (Seminar Management)
              t=2873397496 2873404696
              a=recvonly
              a=rtsp-ice-d-m
              a=control: *
              m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
              a=control: /audio
              m=video 2232 RTP/AVP 31
              a=control: /video

5.2.  Setting up the Media Streams

  The RTSP client reviews the session description returned, for example
  by an RTSP DESCRIBE message, to determine what media resources need
  to be setup.  For each of these media streams where the transport
  protocol supports ICE connectivity checks, the client SHALL gather
  candidate addresses for UDP transport as described in section 4.1.1
  in ICE [RFC5245] according to standard ICE rather than the ICE-Lite
  implementation and according to section 5 of ICE TCP [RFC6544] for
  TCP based candidates.

5.3.  RTSP SETUP Request

  The RTSP client will then send at least one SETUP request per media
  stream to establish the media streams required for the desired
  session.  For each media stream where it desires to use ICE it will
  include a transport specification with "D-ICE" as the lower layer,
  and each media stream SHALL have its own unique combination of ICE

Goldberg, et al.          Expires May 19, 2013                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft  A Media NAT Traversal mechanism for RTSP  November 2012

  candidates and ICE-ufrag.  This transport specification SHOULD be
  placed first in the list to give it highest priority.  It is
  RECOMMENDED that additional transport specifications are provided as
  a fallback in case of non-ICE supporting proxies.  The RTSP client
  will be initiating and thus the controlling party in the ICE
  processing.  For example (Note that some lines are broken in
  contradiction with the defined syntax due to space restrictions in
  the documenting format:

  C->S: SETUP rtsp://server.example.com/fizzle/foo/audio RTSP/2.0
        CSeq: 313
        Transport: RTP/AVP/D-ICE; unicast; ICE-ufrag=8hhY;
                  ICE-Password=asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg; candidates="
                  1 1 UDP 2130706431 10.0.1.17 8998 typ host;
                  2 1 UDP 1694498815 192.0.2.3 45664 typ srflx
                            raddr 10.0.1.17 rport 8998"; RTCP-mux,
                RTP/AVP/UDP; unicast; dest_addr=":6970"/":6971",
                RTP/AVP/TCP;unicast;interleaved=0-1
        Accept-Ranges: NPT, UTC
        User-Agent: PhonyClient/1.2
        Supported: setup.ice-d-m, setup.rtp.rtcp.mux

5.4.  Gathering Candidates

  Upon receiving a SETUP request the server can determine what media
  resource should be delivered and which transport alternatives that
  the client supports.  If one based on D-ICE is on the list of
  supported transports and preferred among the supported, the below
  applies.

  The transport specification will provide which media protocol is to
  be used and based on this and the clients candidates, the server
  determines the protocol and if it supports ICE with that protocol.
  The server shall then gather its UDP candidates according to section
  4.1.1 in ICE [RFC5245] and any TCP based ones according to section 5
  of ICE TCP [RFC6544].

  Servers that have an address that is generally reachable by any
  client within the address scope the server intends to serve MAY be
  specially configured (high-reachability configuration).  This special
  configuration has the goal of reducing the server side candidate to
  preferably a single one per (address family, media stream, media
  component) tuple.  Instead of gathering all possible addresses
  including relayed and server reflexive addresses, the server uses a
  single address per address family that it knows it should be
  reachable by a client behind one or more NATs.  The reason for this
  special configuration is twofold: Firstly it reduces the load on the
  server in address gathering and in ICE processing during the

Goldberg, et al.          Expires May 19, 2013                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft  A Media NAT Traversal mechanism for RTSP  November 2012

  connectivity checks.  Secondly it will reduce the number of
  permutations for candidate pairs significantly thus potentially
  speeding up the conclusion of the ICE processing.  Note however that
  using this option on a server that doesn't fulfill the requirement of
  being reachable is counter-productive and it is important that this
  is correctly configured.

  The above general consideration for servers applies also for TCP
  based candidates.  A general implementation should support several
  candidate collection techniques and connection types.  For TCP based
  candidates a high-reachability configured server is recommended to
  only offer Host candidates.  In addition to passive connection types
  the server can select to provide active or SO connection types to
  match the client's candidates.

5.5.  RTSP Server Response

  The server determines if the SETUP request is successful from the
  other perspectives and if so returns a 200 OK response; otherwise it
  returns an error code.  At that point the server, having selected a
  transport specification using the "D-ICE" lower layer, will need to
  include that transport specification in the response message.  The
  transport specification SHALL include the candidates gathered in
  Section 5.4 in the "candidates" transport header parameter as well as
  the server's username fragment and password.  In the case that there
  are no valid candidate pairs with the combination of the client and
  server candidates, a 480 (ICE Processing Failed) error response SHALL
  be returned which MUST include the server's candidates.  The return
  of a 480 error allows both the server and client to release their
  candidates.

  Example of a successful response to the request in Section 5.3.

  S->C: RTSP/2.0 200 OK
        CSeq: 313
        Session: 12345678
        Transport: RTP/AVP/D-ICE; unicast; RTCP-mux; ICE-ufrag=MkQ3;
                  ICE-Password=pos12Dgp9FcAjpq82ppaF; candidates="
                    1 1 UDP 2130706431 192.0.2.56 50234 typ host"
        Accept-Ranges: NPT
        Date: 23 Jan 1997 15:35:06 GMT
        Server: PhonyServer 1.1
        Supported: setup.ice-d-m, setup.rtp.rtcp.mux

Goldberg, et al.          Expires May 19, 2013                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft  A Media NAT Traversal mechanism for RTSP  November 2012

5.6.  Server to Client ICE Connectivity Checks

  The server shall start the connectivity checks following the
  procedures described in Section 5.7 and 5.8 of ICE [RFC5245] unless
  it is configured to use the high-reachability option.  If it is then
  it MAY suppress its own checks until the servers checks are triggered
  by the client's connectivity checks.

  Please note that ICE [RFC5245] section 5.8 does specify that the
  initiation of the checks are paced and new ones are only started
  every Ta milliseconds.  The motivation for this is documented in
  Appendix B.1 of ICE [RFC5245] as for SIP/SDP all media streams within
  an offer/answer dialog are running using the same queue.  To ensure
  the same behavior with RTSP, the server SHALL use a single pacer
  queue for all media streams within each RTSP session.

  The values for the pacing of STUN and TURN transactions Ta and RTO
  can be configured but have the same minimum values defined in the ICE
  specification.

  When a connectivity check from the client reaches the server it will
  result in a triggered check from the server as specified in section
  7.2.1.4 of ICE [RFC5245].  This is why servers with a high
  reachability address can wait until this triggered check to send out
  any checks for itself so saving resources and mitigating the DDoS
  potential.

5.7.  Client to Server ICE Connectivity Check

  The client receives the SETUP response and learns the candidate
  address to use for the connectivity checks.  The client SHALL
  initiate its connectivity check, following the procedures in Section
  6 of ICE [RFC5245].  The STUN transaction pacer SHALL be used across
  all media streams part of the same RTSP session.

  Aggressive nomination SHALL be used with RTSP.  This doesn't have the
  negative impact that it has in offer/answer as media playing only
  starts after issuing a PLAY request.

5.8.  Client Connectivity Checks Complete

  When the client has concluded all of its connectivity checks and has
  nominated its desired candidate for a particular media stream, it MAY
  issue a PLAY request for that stream.  Note, that due to the
  aggressive nomination, there is a risk that any outstanding check may
  nominate another pair than what was already nominated.  If the client
  has locally determined that its checks have failed it may try
  providing an extended set of candidates and update the server

Goldberg, et al.          Expires May 19, 2013                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft  A Media NAT Traversal mechanism for RTSP  November 2012

  The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, huubatwork@gmail.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry@ietf.org, "Huub van Helvoort"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA Allocation Procedures for OTN Signal Type Subregistry of the GMPLS Signaling Parameters Registry) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Allocation Procedures for OTN Signal Type Subregistry of the
  GMPLS Signaling Parameters Registry'
  as 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 2016-03-14. 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


IANA has defined an "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Parameters" registry. This draft updates the OTN Signal Type
subregistry to allow Specification Required policies, as defined in
RFC 5226.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry/ballot/


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

Document shepherd write-up for

            draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02

(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?

This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document.

This is appropriate because the document describes the extension of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signals defined in [RFC4328] and [RFC7139] with additional signal types mentioned in ITU-T G.Sup43.

This track is noted in the document header.

(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 International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has defined normative OTN Signal Types in G.709. These OTN Signal Types are registered by RFC7139.
The ITU-T has also defined non-normative OTN Signal Types in G.Sup43. This document registers these additional OTN Signal Types.

Working Group Summary:

This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

Document Quality:

The document is concise and provides proper justification for the extension of the OTN Signal Type registry.

Personnel:

Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

(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 has reviewed the current revision of the document and has found nits, see (11).
After addressing these nits he believes it is ready for publication.

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

No concerns.

(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 such content.

(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 such 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?

The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. The links to the disclosures can be found in the comments (history) of the document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
    IPR disclosures.

No disclosures have been made.

(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?

See (2).
There has been a good review and there is good consensus on the document.

(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.)

No threats or discontent.

(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.

Fix nits errors:
Security considerations section is not required.

In Abstract
s/[RFC5226]/RFC 5226/

Fix nits warning:
Because G.Sup43 has been approved and published the following change should be made in section 4.2 (this will also align it with the reference present in section 1)
OLD:
    [GSUP.43] ITU-T, "Proposed revision of G.sup43 (for agreement)",
              February, 2011.
NEW:
    [G.Sup43] ITU-T, “Transport of IEEE 10GBASE-R in optical
              transport networks (OTN)”, February, 2011.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
      criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
      reviews.

No such reviews needed.

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

All normative references are identified correctly.
The Informative Reference has been approved and published.

(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?

None such.

(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.

None such.

(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.

No issues.

(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).

The IANA considerations section is the most important part of this document. It is concise and appropriate.

(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.

The additional subregistries are identified properly.

(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 such sections.

Document shepherd write-up for

            draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02

(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?

This document is requested for publication as a Standards Track document.

This is appropriate because the document describes the extension of the IANA maintained "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signals defined in [RFC4328] and [RFC7139] with additional signal types mentioned in ITU-T G.Sup43.

This track is noted in the document header.

(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 International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has defined normative OTN Signal Types in G.709. These OTN Signal Types are registered by RFC7139.
The ITU-T has also defined non-normative OTN Signal Types in G.Sup43. This document registers these additional OTN Signal Types.

Working Group Summary:

This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

Document Quality:

The document is concise and provides proper justification for the extension of the OTN Signal Type registry.

Personnel:

Huub van Helvoort is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

(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 has reviewed the current revision of the document and has found nits, see (11).
After addressing these nits he believes it is ready for publication.

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

No concerns.

(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 such content.

(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 such 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?

The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. The links to the disclosures can be found in the comments (history) of the document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
    IPR disclosures.

No disclosures have been made.

(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?

See (2).
There has been a good review and there is good consensus on the document.

(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.)

No threats or discontent.

(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.

Fix nits errors:
Security considerations section is not required.

In Abstract
s/[RFC5226]/RFC 5226/

Fix nits warning:
Because G.Sup43 has been approved and published the following change should be made in section 4.2 (this will also align it with the reference present in section 1)
OLD:
    [GSUP.43] ITU-T, "Proposed revision of G.sup43 (for agreement)",
              February, 2011.
NEW:
    [G.Sup43] ITU-T, “Transport of IEEE 10GBASE-R in optical
              transport networks (OTN)”, February, 2011.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
      criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
      reviews.

No such reviews needed.

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

All normative references are identified correctly.
The Informative Reference has been approved and published.

(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?

None such.

(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.

None such.

(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.

No issues.

(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).

The IANA considerations section is the most important part of this document. It is concise and appropriate.

(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.

The additional subregistries are identified properly.

(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 such sections.

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/RDyu5HikSavUredhzGb_QAORDdc

AUTHORS

Fatai Zhang                 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Fr4u446tLWnJWBeX2x6BXtQoPIo
Zafar Ali                Email: zali@cisco.com                 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Y4GVwhcwgPc22TMS_48tlxxoVXo
Matt Hartley                 mhartley@cisco.com                         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/D0mPR81BoDTDRMIqx8dY0T3K3To
Antonello Bonfanti abonfant@cisco.com                       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CppNgJeqV16HdYTuvR-laGt6eLc