Subject: [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03.txt

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:09:58 +0000

Proto-write-up for: draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03.txt

(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?

Informational. Provides additional narrative, no new procedures or
mechanisms are defined. Yes.

(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

The RSVP ASSOCIATION object was defined in the context of GMPLS
(Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label
switched paths (LSPs).  In this context, the object is used to
associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they are protecting.  This
document reviews how association is to be provided in the context
of GMPLS recovery.  No new procedures or mechanisms are
defined by this document and it is strictly informative in nature.

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?

No. Document was a result of questions on proper interpretation of
this object. Good support by the WG.

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?

Not applicable for this document.

Personnel

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

Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the
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.

This document has been adequately reviewed.

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

No concerns.

(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.

No concerns.

(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 WG supported 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.

No issues.

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

Not applicable.

(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?

No.

(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).

Not applicable.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

Not applicable.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:18:15 +0100

Congratulations on a very clear document.

I found one nit during AD review which is not worth handling at this stage. I
have recorded it as an RFC Editor note that we can pick up if a respin is
needed, or leave for the RFC Editor.

I will go ahead and issue the IETF last call.

Cheers,
Adrian

RFC Editor Note

Section 2.1
OLD
   It is explicitly defined as having both general
   application and specific use within the context of recovery.  End-to-
   end recovery usage is defined in [RFC4872] and is covered in Section
   2.2.  Segment recovery usage is defined in [RFC4873] and is covered
   in Section 2.3.    Resource sharing LSP association is also defined in
   [RFC4873], while strictly speaking such association is beyond the
   scope of this document, for completeness it is covered in Section
   2.4. 
NEW
   It is explicitly defined as having both general
   application and specific use within the context of recovery.  End-to-
   end recovery usage is defined in [RFC4872] and is covered in Section
   2.2 of this document.  Segment recovery usage is defined in [RFC4873]
   and is covered in Section 2.3 of this document.  Resource sharing LSP
   association is also defined in [RFC4873], while strictly speaking 
   such association is beyond the scope of this document, for 
   completeness it is covered in Section 2.4 of this document
END