Please find below an updated document shepherd's write-up for draft-ietf-pwe3-packet-pw-03.txt. This has been updated to reflect the change in intended status of the draft from BCP to Standards Track. Best regards Matthew draft-ietf-pwe3-packet-pw-03.txt Document Shepard Write-Up (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? Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci at alcatel-lucent.com) Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for forwarding to the IESG. (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? Yes, the document has received adequate review. The document has received significant review by the WG and received a number of comments during WG last call. (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 specific concerns. (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? I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. Although there were was an alternative proposal for a mechanism to support Packet PWs presented at a number of IETFs, that proposal has not been adopted by the working group. (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.) None indicated. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See 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? Yes. There are a couple of minor I-D nits related to a copyright date and a missing reference. These should be fixed before publication. There are no formal review criteria. (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]. Yes, the references are split appropriately. (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 [RFC5226]. 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 IANA considerations section exists and seems reasonable. (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? There are no sections that use 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 This document describes a pseudowire mechanism that is used to transport a packet service over an MPLS PSN is the case where the client LSR and the server PE are co-resident in the same equipment. This pseudowire mechanism may be used to carry all of the required layer 2 and layer 3 protocols between the pair of client LSRs. This document is a product of the PWE3 working group. This document is Standards Track. Working Group Summary This draft presents a number of alternative encapsulations for a generic packet PW that were investigated by the authors and discussed in the WG over a period of time (these are documented in the appendix), and reaches a conclusion about which one to use. However, an alternative approach was also proposed to the PWE3 working group by a different set of authors in a separate draft, and progressed over a period of a number of IETFs. A consensus call was conducted by the chairs to try to reach agreement on how to proceed. This resulted in the Ethernet PW encapsulation approach, specified in draft-ietf-pwe3-packet-pw-03, being adopted. WG consensus could not be reached on the alternative approach at that time. Since this draft documents a new way to use an existing encapsulation, the draft was originally progressed as a BCP rather than standards track. However, it was subsequently noted in AD review that the document makes IANA requests and therefore version 3, which is the subject of this proto write up, has been promoted to a standards track draft. Document Quality The draft uses an existing Ethernet PW type that is widely deployed. As well as being used for interconnecting Ethernet attachment circuits, there are implementations that directly terminate the Ethernet PW on an IP interface e.g. on a VRF, which represents a subset of the proposal in the draft. However, direct termination on an LSR, as shown in the draft, is not known to be widely implemented/ deployed yet, although such as model has been requested by service providers. There are no further concerns with document quality. The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. |