Subject: [forces] Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:09:36 -0400

Hi Adrian,

Below PLEASE find shepherd write-up for the CE-HA
draft (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt).
Please start the IESG submission process as appropriate.

Thanks a lot.

Best.

Bhumip

Document: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt

Title:    ForCES Intra-NE High Availability

Authors:  K. Ogawa, W. M. Wang, E. Haleplidis, and J. Hadi Salim

Intended status:  Standards Track

(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?

Yes, this document is a Standards Track document (Proposed Standard). The
title page of the draft reflects the RFC type. The choice of standards
track is a WG mandate based on previous charter.

(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: This draft discusses Control Element High Availability
(CE HA) within a ForCES Network Element. Architecture, protocol, and
message exchange (sequence) for hot and cold standby of ForCES control
element are discussed.  Since the HA parameterization in an FE is driven by
configuring the FE Protocol Object (FEPO) LFB, new validated (against the
schema defined in RFC5812) XML version of FEPO has also been presented.

Working Group Summary: Standard WG discussions, nothing controversial.

Document Quality: Based on discussions with ForCES mtg. attendees and
dialog participants, it appears that there are a few implementations of
this draft. The original version (ver. 00) of this draft was published in
Oct. 2010 and since then it has undergone updates based on implementation
experiences and other discussion.

Personnel: Bhumip Khasnabish is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the
Responsible 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.

Yes, I reviewed this draft thoroughly and gave comments/suggestions on
earlier versions. The authors have used my suggestions to update this draft.

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

No I have no concerns. This draft has gone through sufficient number of
reviews and implementation cycles/refinements.

 (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, not at this point in time or for this version.

(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.

None.

(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?

The shepherd has polled the authors of this draft. There are no IPR issues
disclosed or known for the materials presented in this draft.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There are no IPR issues related to this draft.

(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?

Yes, the WG consensus is strong.

(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 one has threatened an appeal or indicated any extreme discontent on this
draft.

(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.

The authors should consider fixing the few minor nits before
finalizing/publishing this draft.

There are 6 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 344 has weird spacing: '...   |try  v...'

  == Line 595 has weird spacing: '...ociated   v...'

  == Line 596 has weird spacing: '...)|CE or  retry...'

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 708, but no explicit
reference was found in the text

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

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

The document has an IANA considerations section that is appropriately
filled out that change a core LFB (FEPO). YES, it does require review by
the ForCES IANA experts

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes, however, update(s) may be required after the ID nits check based fixes
are done.

(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 (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.

The publication of this drat will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.

(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).

Yes, there are impacts due to the existence of and configuration of the new
*FE Protocol Object* (FEPO) *Logical Functional Block* (LFB).

(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.

ForCES IANA expert review is required for the new registries that are
described in #17 above.

(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.

The XML definitions have been vetted by various XML validators against the
ForCES model schema. The XML defined in the document has also been verified
by implementations about which the Document Shepherd has been made aware of.

 =======================.............END..............==========================

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:15:31 +0100

Hi all,
 
Sorry for the delay.
Processing this now.
 
In future, more rapid processing can be achieved by sending to the Secretariat
with subject line "Publication Request" or by using the data tracker to enter
the details.
 
No action for you on this document at the moment.
 
Cheers,
Adrian
 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 11 June 2013 02:10
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt
 
Hi Adrian,   

Thanks a lot.
 
Best. 
 
Bhumip

Document: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt
Title:    ForCES Intra-NE High Availability
Authors:  K. Ogawa, W. M. Wang, E. Haleplidis, and J. Hadi Salim 
Intended status:  Standards Track 
(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? 
Yes, this document is a Standards Track document (Proposed Standard). The title
page of the draft reflects the RFC type. The choice of standards track is a WG
mandate based on previous charter.  
 
(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: This draft discusses Control Element High Availability (CE
HA) within a ForCES Network Element. Architecture, protocol, and message
exchange (sequence) for hot and cold standby of ForCES control element are
discussed.  Since the HA parameterization in an FE is driven by configuring the
FE Protocol Object (FEPO) LFB, new validated (against the schema defined in
RFC5812) XML version of FEPO has also been presented.
Working Group Summary: Standard WG discussions, nothing controversial.
Document Quality: Based on discussions with ForCES mtg. attendees and dialog
participants, it appears that there are a few implementations of this draft. The
original version (ver. 00) of this draft was published in Oct. 2010 and since
then it has undergone updates based on implementation experiences and other
discussion.
Personnel: Bhumip Khasnabish is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the
Responsible 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. 
Yes, I reviewed this draft thoroughly and gave comments/suggestions on earlier
versions. The authors have used my suggestions to update this draft.
 
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? 
No I have no concerns. This draft has gone through sufficient number of reviews
and implementation cycles/refinements.
 
 (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, not at this point in time or for this version.
 
(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. 
None.

 
(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? 
Yes, the WG consensus is strong. 
 
(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 one has threatened an appeal or indicated any extreme discontent on this
draft.

(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. 
The authors should consider fixing the few minor nits before
finalizing/publishing this draft. 
There are 6 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1
character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
  == Line 344 has weird spacing: '...   |try  v...'
  == Line 595 has weird spacing: '...ociated   v...'
  == Line 596 has weird spacing: '...)|CE or  retry...'
  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
  (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to
lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 708, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 
The document has an IANA considerations section that is appropriately filled out
that change a core LFB (FEPO). YES, it does require review by the ForCES IANA
experts
 
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? 
Yes, however, update(s) may be required after the ID nits check based fixes are
done.
 
(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 (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.

The publication of this drat will not change the status of any existing RFCs.
 
(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). 
Yes, there are impacts due to the existence of and configuration of the new FE
Protocol Object (FEPO) Logical Functional Block (LFB).
 
(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. 
ForCES IANA expert review is required for the new registries that are described
in #17 above.
 
(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. 
The XML definitions have been vetted by various XML validators against the
ForCES model schema. The XML defined in the document has also been verified by
implementations about which the Document Shepherd has been made aware of.
 =======================.............END..............==========================