Subject: [PWE3] publication requested for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-05.txt

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:44:30 +0200

All,

We requested publication of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-05.txt
as an RFC on te standards track.

The shepherd write-up is included.

/Loa
-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13
The MPLS WG requests that:
   MPLS TP Network Management Requirements
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-04
is published as an RFC on the standards track.

Note that this document is a requirement document. For reasons that
have to do with how the ITU-T can reference RFCs we have opted to put
it on the Standards Track.

> (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?

Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
He has reviewed the codument and believes it is ready to be
forwarded to the IESG for publication.

> (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?

The review has been substantial.
Considerable input to early revisions was received from MPLS WG
participants and from a detailed review by members of ITU-T Study
Group 15.

The WG last call was liaised to the ITU-T and received a number of
comments that were addressed in the final revision that was approved
by the ITU-T in a liaison.

The WG last call was notified to the PWE3 and CCAMP working groups.

> (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 document includes details of network management features, but
was authored and reviewed by many people active in the Operations Area.

> (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.

One off-line comment that has been forwarded to the shepherd is that
the style of the document is too much of an ITU-T document. This
comment was not raised on the list and seems more related to the fact
that the IETF is not familiar with requirements documents than based
in any specific objections.

> (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?

Development of the document was performed within the MPLS-TP design
team (c. 20 people) that strongly supports the work. There has also
been some discussion on the MPLS-TP (open) mailing list, and there
were no objections raised.

> (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.)

No threats or extreme discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>       document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
>       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?

All checks are clean.

> (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].

References are correctly split.

There are two normative references to I-Ds.

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements has completed WG last call and will
be ready for advancement soon.

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements is on the RFC Editor's Queue.

There are two downrefs. These are deliberate.

RFC 4377 Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi-Protocol
         Label Switched (MPLS) Networks

RFC 3871 Operational Security Requirements for Large Internet Service
         Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure

References to Informational RFC's 4377 and 3871 have to be made explicit
in the IETF last call.

> (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?

There are no IANA actions associated with this document.

A null IANA section is present.

> (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?

No such 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 specifies the requirements for the management of
  equipment used in networks supporting an MPLS Transport Profile
  (MPLS-TP). The requirements are defined for specification of
  network management aspects of protocol mechanisms and procedures
  that constitute the building blocks out of which the MPLS
  transport profile is constructed.  That is, these requirements
  indicate what management capabilities need to be available in
  MPLS for use in managing the MPLS-TP. This document is intended
  to identify essential network management capabilities, not to
  specify what functions any particular MPLS implementation
  supports.

Working Group Summary

  The document is part of the MPLS-TP project, the cooperation
  between IETF and ITU-T to specify an MPLS transport profile.
  There are no outstanding issues. It is put on the standards
  track to resolve issues around how the ITU-T references IETF
  documents.

Document Quality

  The document is a requirements specification and will mainly
  be used as input to the network management solutions specifications
  that will be published shortly.