Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) Application of the Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP)
draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-05

[Ballot comment]
This is a small thing, but please give some consideration to this:

A 2119 "SHOULD" defines something that implementations need to do unless they have a good reason not to, and fully understand the issues and the consequences of not doing it.  In general, I believe that means that specifications, when they use "SHOULD", need to include enough information for readers to understand why it's a "SHOULD" and to evaluate the consequences.  That seems missing from many of the SHOULDs here, and I'd like to see you go through the document, find the ones that aren't making it clear enough, and beef them up just a little.

An example where this is done right is in Section 4.2.3:

  While a PE has sent out a synchronization request for a particular PE
  node, it SHOULD silently ignore all TLVs from that node, that are
  received prior to the synchronization response and which carry the
  same type of information being requested.  This saves the system from
  the burden of updating state that will ultimately be overwritten by
  the synchronization response. Note that TLVs pertaining to other
  systems should continue to be processed normally.

THe second sentence explains why, and gives me some idea of what to consider when I'm writing my implementation.  Thank you.  There are others that get it right as well.

A particularly weak one is in Section 4.2.1:

  A PE SHOULD follow the following order when advertising its STP state
  upon initial application connection setup:

What's the significance of that order, from an interoperability, performance, or security perspective?  What happens if, because of how my implementation is written, it's easier for me to do them in a different order and I decide to do so, not knowing what the consequences are?

[Ballot comment]

- 3.3.5: is that a hard-coded sha1 or md5? if so, why is that
ok? what if 802.1q is fixed/improved e.g. to use sha256?

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04. 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.

In the ICC RG Parameter Types subregistry of the Pseudowire Name Spaces registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

the following 13 registration will be made for codepoints in a sequential block starting from the next available value in the range marked for assignment by IETF review (0x2000-0x2FFF):

Parameter Type Description Reference
------------------------ --------------------------------- --------------
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Connect TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Disconnect TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP System Config TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Region Name TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Revision Level TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Instance Priority TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Configuration Digest TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Topology Changed Instances TLV[ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP STP CIST Root Time TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP MSTI Root Time TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Synchronization Request TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Synchronization Data TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] STP Disconnect Cause TLV [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (STP Application of ICCP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled
Services WG (pals) to consider the following document:
- 'STP Application of ICCP'
  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 2015-09-23. 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


  Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) supports an inter-chassis
  redundancy mechanism which is used to support high network
  availability.

  In this document, the PEs in a Redundancy Group (RG) running ICCP are
  used to offer multi-homed connectivity to Spanning Tree Protocol
  (STP) networks to improve availability of the STP networks. The ICCP
  TLVs  and usage for the ICCP STP application are defined.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp/ballot/


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

AD review
======

Hello authors,

I have done my usual AD review of your draft. The purpose of the review
is to ensure that the document is ready to go forward for IETF last call
and IESG evaluation, and to catch any issues before those stages in the
process.

My review has uncovered a number of issues that I would like you to
address before I advance the document. You may make the changes and
post a new revision, or you can discuss the issues with me and tell me
I am wrong (very happy if you do that! :-)

Additionally, if you can find someone who is interested in this work who
can perform an English language review for you that would be really
helpful. If not, the RFC Editor will try to fix up the English, but
there is a risk that they will break the technical meaning when they
process the text.

I have asked the PALS working group for a volunteer, and Ignas Bagdonas
(ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com) has offered to help.  Please contact him
direct. But you might also know someone who could help with this.

I suggest that you wait for this review and then combine it with the
fixes to the comments I have noted below. In the meantime, I will mark
the I-D as "revised I-D needed".

Thanks for the work,

Adrian

====

idnits notes some problems with the references.

== Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 981, but not defined

== Unused Reference: 'RFC6310' is defined on line 1032, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp has been published as RFC 7275

---

The document shepherd noted:

> Also, as I was writing this up, I noticed in several places that there
> was a consistent typo that transposed "RFC 7275" as "RFC 7257".
>
> There is one additional typo I noticed during final review, for
> consistency with RFC 7275, the term "Redundant Group (RG)" should be
> "Redundancy Group (RG)". This comes up twice in the draft. Again, this
> can be fixed by the RFC Editor.

Please fix these issues now.

---

Your IANA considerations section needs some work.

You need to say:

  The IANA maintains a top-level registry called "Pseudowire Name
  Spaces (PWE3)".  It has a sub-registry called "ICC RG Parameter
  Types".

  IANA is requested to make 13 allocations from this registry as
  shown below.  IANA is requested to allocate the codepoints in a
  sequential block starting from the next available value in the
  range marked for assignment by IETF review 0x2000-0x2FFF).  All
  assignments should reference this document.

      Parameter Type Description
      -------------- ---------------------------------
      TBD1          STP Connect TLV
      TBD2          STP Disconnect TLV
      TBD3          STP System Config TLV
      TBD4          STP Region Name TLV
      TBD5          STP Revision Level TLV
      TBD6          STP Instance Priority TLV
      TBD7          STP Configuration Digest TLV
      TBD8          STP Topology Changed Instances TLV
      TBD9          STP STP CIST Root Time TLV
      TBD10          STP MSTI Root Time TLV
      TBD11          STP Synchronization Request TLV
      TBD12          STP Synchronization Data TLV
      TBD13          STP Disconnect Cause TLV

Now you will need to go through the document and replace the specific
numbers you have used with the "TBD" indicators in this table.

---

3.3.4 has two fields that need more explanation...

      - Pri

        The Instance Priority

How is this field interpreted? Does a higher or lower value indicate a
higher priority?

      - InstanceID

        The instance identification number of the MSTI.

Where does this value come from and how is it encoded (presumably in line
format).

---

In 3.4.1

      - InstanceID List

        The list of the instances whose topology is changed as indicated
        by the Topology Change Notification (TCN) Messages as specified
        in [802.1q] Section 13.14.

Assuming this is a list of InstanceID values as found in 3.3.4 you need
to explain how this list is formed.

Does a list with two entries look like
    0                  1                  2
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |      InstanceID#1    |      InstanceID#2    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Or like...

    0                  1                  2                  3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | InstanceID#1          | rsvd  | InstanceID#2          | rsvd  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Or like...

    0                  1                  2                  3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | rsvd  | InstanceID#1          | rsvd  | InstanceID#2          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

If the first case, how do you set the length field for the TLV?

---

In 3.4.2, I think you can say the exact vale of Length.

---

Also in 3.4.2 you have four fields conveying time values. You need to
tell us what units they are in.

---

Section 3.4.3 defines a TLV with a strange name.  The "STP MSTI Root
Time" has no concept of "time" carried in it. Perhaps the remaining
hops refers to the "Time To Live"? It would be nice if the text
explained this.

---

Also in 3.4.3 I think you can say the exact value of Length.

---

Also in 3.4.3 there is an InstanceID using 16 bits, but it appears
(from 3.3.4) that InstanceIDs only use 12 bits.

---

Section 3.5

      - Request Type

        14-bits specifying the request type, encoded as follows:

          0x00  Request Configuration Data
          0x01  Request State Data
          0x3FFF Request All Data

Curiously, this is a 16-bit field. Can you help us to understand where
the 14 bits of information are placed in the field.

---

Section 3.6

      - Flags

        2 octets, response flags encoded as follows:

          0x00 Synchronization Data Start
          0x01 Synchronization Data End

Are you saying you cannot set both "Data Start" and "Data End" on the
same message? If so, then what you have defined is one flag.

    0                  1                  2                  3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |U|F|  Type=0x004B            |    Length                    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    Request Number            |    Flags                  |S|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  The S-flag occupies the least significant bit of the Flags field and
  is interpreted as follows:

          S = 0 : Synchronization Data Start
          S = 1 : Synchronization Data End

But if you allow start and end on the same message you need two flags.

    0                  1                  2                  3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |U|F|  Type=0x004B            |    Length                    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    Request Number            |    Flags                |E|S|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  The S-flag is interpreted as follows:

          S = 1 : Synchronization Data Start

  The E-flag is interpreted as follows:

          E = 1 : Synchronization Data End

  If is not valid for both flags to be clear at the same time.

Please decide which you mean.

Now, also please tell me about the other Flags. Will they ever be
defined?
- If "yes", then I think you need a new IANA registry, and you should
  point to the new subsection of Section 6 that you will need to write.
- If "no", then I think you should mark the field as Reserved and not
  Flags.

---

While the ICC security considerations apply here, I think Section 5 is
a little thin. It seems to me that using this approach, an attack on ICC
(running in the provider's network) can break not only the ability to
deliver traffic across the provider's network, but the ability to route
traffic within the customer's network. That is, careful attack on ICC
can break STP within the customer network.

Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps you need to discuss this.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

Proposed Standard. This draft specifies a new application for the ICCP protocol, RFC
7275. The title page is correct.

(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

  Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) supports an inter-chassis
  redundancy mechanism which achieves high availability.

  In this document, the PEs in a Redundancy Group (RG) running ICCP are
  used to offer multi-homed connectivity to Spanning Tree Protocol (STP)
  networks. The ICCP TLVs for the STP application are defined, therefore
  PEs from the RG can make use of these TLVs to synchronize the state and
  configuration data of the STP network. The operation logic of the application
  and the usage of these ICCP TLVs are specified.

Working Group Summary

  As a result of WG last call, a number of improvements were made to the draft
  from revision -01 to -02, largely based on review comments from Alexander
  (Sasha) Vainshtein. However, not all of Sasha's suggested changes were
  included, which left him a bit dissatisfied. As a result, he may comment during
  IETF last call. Because of the changes, the WG was given a chance to re-review
  revision -02, and no further WG comments were received. So the WG certainly
  has rough consensus.

Document Quality

  There is at least one implementation in progress the last time that this was
  polled. See my previous comment about Sasha Vainshtein's review and
  subsequent changes.

Personnel

  Andy Malisis 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.

I was included in the email trail between Sasha and the authors and have reviewed the
resulting draft. Comments that I had during those emails were also taken into account.

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

No, see discussion above.

(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.

(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.

Yes.

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

No.

(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?

The draft received good comments during its development, and as I said before,
extensive comments from Sasha during WG last call, and no WG dissent on the final
review.

(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, just minor discontent from Sasha that not everything he proposed ended up in the
final revision. He has not threatened an appeal, although he may comment during
IETF last call.

(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.

There just a few very minor nits:

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 981, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6310' is defined on line 1032, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp has been published as RFC 7275

Also, as I was writing this up, I noticed in several places that there was a consistent
typo that transposed "RFC 7275" as "RFC 7257".

These can all be fixed by the RFC Editor.

There is one additional typo I noticed during final review, for consistency with RFC
7275, the term "Redundant Group (RG)" should be "Redundancy Group (RG)". This
comes up twice in the draft. Again, this can be fixed by the RFC Editor.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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.

(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.

(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.

N/A

(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).

There are no new registries defined. The draft does request new values in the "ICC
RG Parameter Types" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-
parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#icc-rg . The particular requested values are in
the "Expert Review" range. At the time that this registry was established by RFC 7275,
Stewart Bryant was the responsible AD, and as I recall, he named Matthew Bocci and
Samer Salem as the experts.

(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.

None.

(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.

N/A

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

Proposed Standard. This draft specifies a new application for the ICCP protocol, RFC 7275. The title page is correct.

(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

  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.

Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) supports an inter-chassis redundancy mechanism which achieves high availability.

In this document, the PEs in a Redundancy Group (RG) running ICCP are used to offer multi-homed connectivity to Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) networks. The ICCP TLVs for the STP application are defined, therefore PEs from the RG can make use of these TLVs to synchronize the state and configuration data of the STP network. The operation logic of the application and the usage of these ICCP TLVs are specified.

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?

As a result of WG last call, a number of improvements were made to the draft from revision -01 to -02, largely based on review comments from Alexander (Sasha) Vainshtein. However, not all of Sasha's suggested changes were included, which left him a bit dissatisfied. As a result, he may comment during IETF last call. Because of the changes, the WG was given a chance to re-review revision -02, and no further WG comments were received. So the WG certainly has rough consensus.

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 is at least one implementation in progress the last time that this was polled. See my previous comment about Sasha Vainshtein's review and subsequent changes.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Andy Malis, Adrian Farrel

(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.

I was included in the email trail between Sasha and the authors and have reviewed the resulting draft. Comments that I had during those emails were also taken into account.

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

No, see discussion above.

(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.

(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.

Yes.

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

No.

(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?

The draft received good comments during its development, and as I said before, extensive comments from Sasha during WG last call, and no WG dissent on the final review.

(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, just minor discontent from Sasha that not everything he proposed ended up in the final revision. He has not threatened an appeal, although he may comment during IETF last call.

(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.

There just a few very minor nits:

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 981, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6310' is defined on line 1032, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp has been published as RFC 7275

Also, as I was writing this up, I noticed in several places that there was a consistent typo that transposed "RFC 7275" as "RFC 7257".

These can all be fixed by the RFC Editor.

There is one additional typo I noticed during final review, for consistency with RFC 7275, the term "Redundant Group (RG)" should be "Redundancy Group (RG)". This comes up twice in the draft. Again, this can be fixed by the RFC Editor.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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.

(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.

(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.

N/A

(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).

There are no new registries defined. The draft does request new values in the "ICC RG Parameter Types" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#icc-rg . The particular requested values are in the "Expert Review" range. At the time that this registry was established by RFC 7275, Stewart Bryant was the responsible AD, and as I recall, he named Matthew Bocci and Samer Salem as the experts.

(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.

None.

(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.

N/A