Subject: [PWE3] Request to publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-14.txt

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:04:02 -0400

Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-14.txt

   (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?

Andrew Malis, [email-masked]

Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for forwarding
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?

Yes, the document has received adequate discussion and review. The document
went through two last calls in the PWE3 working group, the second to review
changes made from the first last call, and no comments were received on the
second last call.

   (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.

   (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.

No concerns or issues.

   (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?

I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been
reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants.

   (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
         discontent? If so, please summarize 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.

   (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
         document satisfies all ID nits? (See
         http://www.ietf.org/ID-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?

The id-nits service on the tools site is broken as I write this, so I'm
unable to personally test for id-nits. However, the draft was uploaded
successfully by the author, so it must have passed id-nits at that time.
This document is not subject to MIB doctor or other reviews.

   (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].

Yes, the references are split appropriately. All of the normative references
are to published RFCs and ITU-T recommendations, with no downrefs.

   (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?

The IANA considerations section exists. It does not request any IANA
actions.

   (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 a 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 mapping and notification of defect states
between a pseudowire (PW) and the Attachment Circuits (ACs) of the
end-to-end emulated service. It standardizes the behavior of Provider Edges
(PEs) with respect to PW and AC defects. It addresses ATM, Frame Relay, TDM,
and SONET/SDH PW services, carried over MPLS, MPLS/IP and L2TPV3/IP Packet
Switched Networks (PSNs).

This document is a product of the PWE3 working group.

This document is intended for the standards track.

Working Group Summary

One of the work items in the PWE3 Working Group Charter is to "Specify
Operations and Management (OAM) mechanisms for all PW types, suitable for
operation over both IP/L2TPv3 and MPLS PSNs, and capable of providing the
necessary interworking with the OAM mechanisms of the emulated service."
This document addresses this work item for ATM, Frame Relay, TDM, and
SONET/SDH pseudowires. A separate document will address Ethernet
pseudowires.

Document Quality

There are no concerns about document quality.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Andrew Malis, [email-masked]

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Stewart Bryant