[OSPF] Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions - draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt (Resending with IESG Secretrary Copied)

[Acee Lindem <acee at redback.com>]

Hello Ross, Adrian,

The OSPF WG would like to request publication of the subject  
standards track document.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt

I've attached the protocol write-up for the draft.

Thanks,
Acee

  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet 
     Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
     to forward to the IESG for publication?

     Yes 

  2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
     key non-WG members? 

     Yes - I've reviewed it myself several times.

     Do you have any concerns about the depth or
     breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
    
     No
 
  3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
     particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational 
     complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

     No

  4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
     you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
     perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
     or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event,
     if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
     indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
     those concerns in the write-up.

     No

  5. 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 has been around for several years and evolved to allow its
     applicability to ASON routing. I see no barriers to standardization. 

  6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
     discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict
     in separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

     No

  7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all
     of the ID Checklist items? 
idnits 2.11.11 

tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
     Standard


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

     No issues found here.

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 1 warning (==), 0 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  8. Is the document split into normative and informative references?

     Yes

     Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
     also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note
     here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
     references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs
     are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

     No

  9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard,
     Informational?)

     Proposed Standard

 10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement 
     includes a write-up section with the following sections:

    * Technical Summary

      This draft extends OSPF TE to advertise addresses and prefixes without
      the overhead of the TE link sub-TLV or relegation to host addresses. 
 
    * Working Group Summary

      There is no opposition to the draft and  at least on CCAMP draft has
      it as a normative reference. 

    * Protocol Quality

      The TLV and sub-TLV definitions and conventions for advertisement
      of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are consistent with OSPF and OSPFv3. This 
      encoding is both straight forward and concise.


    

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf