Fwd: Request for publication: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-06.txt

FYI.
-Ignacio

>Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:24:27 -0700
>To: [email protected], [email protected]
>From: Ignacio Goyret <[email protected]>
>Subject: Request for publication: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-06.txt
>Cc: [email protected], Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]>
>
>Hi,
>I would like to ask for the ID draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-06.txt
>to be published.
>
>Here are the answers to the PROTO questionnaire for this draft:
>
>   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. Ignacio Goyret will be the WG Chair Shepherd for this document.
>
>
>   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 been reviewed in the l2tpext WG. There are no concerns
>about the extent of the reviews.
>
>   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.)?
>
>I believe the document has received sufficient review since its
>initial publication in 2001.
>
>   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.
>
>All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed.
>The single comment received during WG LC can be found here:
>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext/current/msg01038.html
>which was addressed with a new section in the document.
>To my knowledge, there aren't any outstanding concerns from anyone.
>
>   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?
>
>There have been no dissenting voices during review and/or LC.
>
>   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. The document checks out without any errors.
>
>   1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
>        informative?  Are there normative references to IDs, where the
>        IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
>        unclear state?  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]?  Listing these supports the Area Director in
>        the Last Call downref procedure specified in RFC 3967.
>
>References are properly split. All the references are to already
>published RFCs.
>
>   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
>        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
>        sections:
>
>        *    Technical Summary
>
>This document describes transport of Ethernet frames over Layer 2
>Tunneling Protocol (L2TPv3). This includes the transport of Ethernet
>port to port frames as well as the transport of Ethernet VLAN frames.
>The mechanism described in this document can be used in the creation
>of Pseudo Wires to transport Ethernet frames over an IP network.
>
>        *    Working Group Summary
>
>The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during
>review and last call have been addressed.
>
>        *    Protocol Quality
>
>This is a fairly simple and straight-forward application of L2TPv3
>to transport another type of traffic.
>
>
>Cheers,
>-Ignacio Goyret