Requirements for Supporting Customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-05

Proto writeup by Danny McPherson:

  (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?

  The Document Shepherd is myself (Danny McPherson). I believe that
  the 04 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication
  as an Informational RFC.

  (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 passed the L3VPN WG Last Call, although we received
  no comments on the document during the Last Call.  No outstanding
  comments exist.

  (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?  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.

  (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?

  There were no objections during the WG Last Call on the document,
  and the utility of this specification is both obvious and intuitive.

  (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, not to my knowledge.

  (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?

    The idnits tool reports no nits.  There are no MIB or other
    elements in the document that would warrant review.  As such,
    I have no concerns here.

  (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].

    The document split its references.  There are a large number of
    normative references, some of which may perhaps be a bit gratuitous,
    but all are published and available and I have no issues with the
    current approach.

  (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 [RFC2434].  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?

  The document contains an IANA considerations section, but introduces
  no new registries, assignments, or other IANA actions.

  (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 section of this document is written in a formal language.

  (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.

    Today, customers expect to run triple play services through BGP/MPLS
    IP-VPNs. Some Service Providers will deploy services that request 
QoS
    guarantees from a local CE to a remote CE across the network. As a
    result, the application (e.g., voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed
    data pipe, etc.) requirements for end-to-end QOS and reserving
    adequate bandwidth continue to increase.

    Service Providers can use both MPLS and an MPLS-TE LSP to meet the
    service objectives. This document describes service provider
    requirements for supporting customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a
    BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.

          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?

    This document is a product of L3VPN WG. There were no comments
    on the document during the WG Last Call.

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?


    This is a requirements document that describes service provider
    requirements for supporting customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/
    MPLS IP VPN, it is not a protocol specification.


            Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
            to implement the specification?

  I do not know.

            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?

  Not to the best of my knowledge.

            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?

  Nope, none of the above.