Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er

Document Writeup for Working Group Documents

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 document defines new protocol procedures and a new TLV.

(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:

   Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) setup through an explicit
   path may be required to provide a simple solution for 1:1 protection
   with diverse primary and backup MS-PWs for a service, or to enable
   controlled signaling (strict or loose) for special MS-PWs.  This
   document specifies the extensions and procedures required to enable
   dynamic MS-PWs to be established along explicit paths.

Working Group Summary:

   The document has been held up in the working group for a while because it is
   dependent on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, which is currently in the RFC
   Editor's queue (draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er was split out from that draft in
   2011). We kept this draft in the WG until draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw
   reached the RFC Editor in case any changes were made during WG LC, IETF LC,
   or IESG deliberation that might result in changes to this draft. As it
   turned out, no such changes were needed.

Document Quality:

   There is at least one publicly known, shipping implementation of this draft
   (ALU). The document text has been stable for quite some time, other than a
   few recent changes made as a result of the shepherd's review.

Personnel:

   Andrew Malis 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.

   I did a shepherd's review prior to IESG submission and found one small
   technical nit and a bunch of editing nits, which were all corrected in the
   revision being submitted.

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

   None. It's been in the WG for a while and had good discussion and comments.

(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.

   None have been filed.

(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?

   There is solid WG consensus behind this 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.

(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.

   The document passes nits cleanly.

(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?

   All are RFCs except for draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, which is in the RFC
   Editor's queue.

(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.

   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.

   No.

(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 very simple, it requests one new entry to
   the TLV Type list at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ldp-
   namespaces.xhtml#ldp-namespaces-4 , in the IETF Consensus range.

(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
Back