Subject: [Iptel] PROTO writeup on TGREP

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:09:54 -0500

TGREP is another one of our documents that is long overdue. I've held 
the token for way too long to do a writeup and shepherd it through, as 
its been done for a while.

I've now gone ahead and done that. Enclosed is the proto writeup. I've 
asked IESG to consider it for PS.

In terms of status, besides tgrep and tel-reg, we have one other 
document not published as RFC. That is the trunk group spec. It is 
currently being reviewed by IESG and we have just gotten some comments 
back. Vijay is working to incorporate those and issue a revision shortly.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?  Which chair is the WG
        Chair Shepherd for this document?

Yes, the chair (Jonathan Rosenberg) has personally reviewed this
version of the document. The chair believes the I-D is ready to
forward for publication. The sole chair is the shepherd.

 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has had review from several key members over the years,
including Vijay Gurbani, Bob Penfield, and Cullen Jennings. It has had
contribution from many in the group as well that have participated in
mailing list discussions. I do not have any concerns over the breadth
or depth of reviews.

The document has not had any review from experts outside of the WG. 

1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization,
        XML, etc.)?

It
might benefit from comment from routing experts; however, the draft
upon which TGREP is based (TRIP) was reviewed by the routing community
when it was first published. Consequently, additional reviews seem
less important at this time.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

I have no concerns on the document itself. It should be noted that
this specification has been around for a while and has been stable for
a long time. It has had very limited implementation and almost no
deployment, which is why the community has not been clamoring for its
publication. 

  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?

Working group consensus is good. Iptel is a small group overall, and
an even smaller part of it has had an interest in this work. Most of
the group is interested in the tel URI and related documents, which
have seen more widespread adoption and implementation. However,
amongst the participants that have taken an interest in it over the
years, the document has WG consensus.

 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.  (It should be
        separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into
        the tracker).

No.

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against
        all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
        Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
        thorough.

Yes.

  1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? 

Yes.

        Are there normative references to IDs, where the
        IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
        unclear state? 

There is one normative reference to an I-D, the trunk group
specification, which is currently under consideration by IESG.

        The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs (will delay the publication until
        all such IDs are also ready for RFC publicatioin).  If the
        normative references are behind, what is the strategy for their
        completion?  On a related matter, are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in BCP 97, RFC 3967
        RFC 3967 [RFC3967]? 

No.

        Listing these supports the Area Director in
        the Last Call downref procedure specified in RFC 3967.

   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

Telephony Gateway Registration Protocol (TGREP) is a companion
protocol to Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP, RFC 3219). TRIP itself is
a variation on BGP used to distribute routes to telephony gateways
between administrative domains. TGREP is an intra-domain protocol that
allows a gateway to feed its routes to a TRIP entity, which can then
distribute them inter-domain via TRIP. TGREP is identical to TRIP
itself in terms of state machinery and protocol messages. However, it
adds additional processing steps not needed in TRIP, and adds
attributes that are unique to intra-domain route propagation (such as
available capacity). 

        *    Working Group Summary

The draft is a charter item of the IP Telephony (iptel) working group,
and is targeted for Proposed Standard. Work began in March of
2000. The document was adopted as a working group item in December
2002. Work progressed steadily over the next few years. A first WGLC
was issued in March of 2004 and again in Feburary of 2006. 

        *    Protocol Quality

The specification has been reviewed by many participants over the
years, most recently by the chair, who did a detailed review of the
document. 
_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel