Shepherd writeup
rfc7892-05

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.




Back