Huub, hi I would like to thank you for this rather informative review of the draft that you are shepherding. However, I am confused by some of the omissions of your information - 1. In answer to question 1.b you point out that "no discussion has taken place on any email lists. However, this draft is addressing a well know issue that was first brought to the attention of the IETF in a request from the director of the ITU-T in June 2010..." So the direct answer to the question should have been "NO - there was not sufficient review of the document." 2. In answer to question 1.f you somehow failed to point out that a previous version of this request that was presented in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01, was presented in the Routing Area open meeting and "extreme discontent" was voiced by several participants, albeit alongside the support of several participants. However, again the direct answer to the question should have been - based on the discussion within the Routing Area - YES, extreme discontent was expressed in the past to this request. 3. In answer to question 1.k you voice your opinion, as document shepherd, " It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of this document on the working group lists would be a distraction from the technical protocol work that the working groups need to do." This, I think should be first verified with the relevant WG-Chairs (that in my opinion could be both MPLS, whose protocol this document wishes to monitor, and PWE3, who are the "owners" of the registry that the document wishes to allocate a codepoint from.) before making such a statement. This decision is within the realm of their responsibilities, I believe. Thanx Yaacov Weingarten Nokia Siemens Networks -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Huub helvoort Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:17 PM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; The IESG; Ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt Document Writeup for draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt As required by RFC-to-be draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up for individual submissions via the IESG. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 5, 2007. -- (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? Huub van Helvoort (Huub.van.Helvoort@xxxxxxxxxx) Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for forwarding to the IESG to be published. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document was first posted on 16th October; no discussion has taken place on any email lists. However, this draft is addressing a well know issue that was first brought to the attention of the IETF in a request from the director of the ITU-T in June 2010 requesting the assignment of an ACh code point that would be used to run Ethernet based OAM on MPLS-TP networks. The draft requests IANA to assign a code point from the registry of Pseudowire Associated Channel Types. It does not make any proposals to modify the MPLS data plane forwarding behaviour or of the any IETF defined protocols. Therefore, review by the MPLS WG is not required. (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. The purpose of the document is clear and the scope is limited to the assignment of a code point for (restricted) use by the ITU-T. (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The issue of supporting an alternative set of OAM mechanisms for MPLS-TP based on Ethernet OAM has been widely discussed without reaching any firm conclusion. Note that more than 350,000 nodes have now been deployed with Ethernet based OAM using a code point from the experimental range. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? This draft is requesting the assignment of an ACh code point that will be used to run Ethernet based OAM on MPLS-TP networks. This protocol has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be considered to be a MPLS protocol and therefore should not subject to the provisions of RFC 4929. This request is supported by a significant number of network operators. However, discussion on the IETF list during the last call of draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations indicates that other do not support the view that aa alternative Ethernet based OAM mechanism is required. (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, however see the discussion on the IETF list during the last call of draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html> and 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? No ID_nits found; the draft does not define a MIB or any protocols. (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]. The split is appropriate; the only normative references are to published RFCs without any downwards references. (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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 consideration section exists and is consistent. (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 formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? 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. This document assigns an Associated Channel Type code point for carrying Ethernet based Operations, Administration, and Management messages in the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh). Working Group Summary Was there anything in the discussion in the interested community that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? This document is an individual submission via AD sponsorship aiming to gain IETF consensus. It is not the product of a working group. This document assigns an Associated Channel Type code point for carrying Ethernet based Operations, Administration, and Management messages in the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh). These OAM messages will be used as an alternative mechanism to support OAM functions in a MPLS-TP network. To date more than 350,000 nodes have been deployed using this mechanism using a code point from the experimental range. This document does not contain technical details of OAM for MPLS-TP networks, and does not make any comment on the judgement of the working groups in their technical decisions. The document is concerned with the wider issue of IETF policy and process. It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of this document on the working group lists would be a distraction from the technical protocol work that the working groups need to do. 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? The Ethernet based OAM protocol that will run behind this code point has been implemented by at least four vendors and more than 350,000 nodes have been deployed. Multi-vendor inter-operability test have been completed successfully. The draft does not specify a MIB or provides any protocol details. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf