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(_dot_)van(_dot_)Helvoort(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com)
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf