Document: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt
Title: ForCES Intra-NE High Availability
Authors: K. Ogawa, W. M. Wang, E. Haleplidis, and J. Hadi Salim
Intended status: Standards Track
(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?
Yes, this document is a Standards Track document (Proposed Standard). The title
page of the draft reflects the RFC type. The choice of standards track is a WG
mandate based on previous charter.
(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 draft discusses Control Element High Availability (CE HA)
within a ForCES Network Element. Architecture, protocol, and message exchange
(sequence) for hot and cold standby of ForCES control element are discussed. Since
the HA parameterization in an FE is driven by configuring the FE Protocol Object
(FEPO) LFB, new validated (against the schema defined in RFC5812) XML version of
FEPO has also been presented.
Working Group Summary: Standard WG discussions, nothing controversial.
Document Quality: Based on discussions with ForCES mtg. attendees and dialog
participants, it appears that there are a few implementations of this draft. The original
version (ver. 00) of this draft was published in Oct. 2010 and since then it has
undergone updates based on implementation experiences and other discussion.
Personnel: Bhumip Khasnabish is the Document Shepherd.
Adrian Farrel 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.
Yes, I reviewed this draft thoroughly and gave comments/suggestions on earlier
versions. The authors have used my suggestions to update this draft.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed?
No I have no concerns. This draft has gone through sufficient number of reviews and
implementation cycles/refinements.
(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, not at this point in time or for this version.
(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.
None.
(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 shepherd has polled the authors of this draft. There are no IPR issues disclosed
or known for the materials presented in this draft.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There are no IPR issues related to this draft.
(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?
Yes, the WG consensus is strong.
(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 one has threatened an appeal or indicated any extreme discontent on this draft.
(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.
All nits were fixed in -08, but one new simple one crept in.
It is only a reference in the Abstract and the RFC Editor will fix it easily.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has an IANA considerations section that is appropriately filled out that
change a core LFB (FEPO). YES, it does require review by the ForCES IANA experts
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative?
Yes, however, update(s) may be required after the ID nits check based fixes are done.
(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?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No.
(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.
The publication of this drat will not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(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).
Yes, there are impacts due to the existence of and configuration of the new FE
Protocol Object (FEPO) Logical Functional Block (LFB).
(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.
ForCES IANA expert review is required for the new registries that are described in #17
above.
(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.
The XML definitions have been vetted by various XML validators against the ForCES
model schema. The XML defined in the document has also been verified by
implementations about which the Document Shepherd has been made aware of.