draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions - publish request + proto

Please, publish the ID draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04.txt
as Proposed Standard.

Here are the answers to the PROTO questionnaire for this document:

   (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?

Yes. Ignacio Goyret will be the WG Document Shepherd for this document.

   (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?

The document has been reviewed in the l2tpext WG and the pwe3 WG
(see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext/current/msg01202.html
and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10354.html).
Further detailed review was performed by Ignacio Goyret.

There are no concerns about the extent of the reviews.

   (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?

We don't believe there is any need for additional review from other areas
since the document extends a parameter that only affects L2TP version 3.

   (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?

All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed.
To my knowledge, there aren't any outstanding issues.


          Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?

To my knowledge, no IPR disclosures have been filed.



   (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 WGLC.
   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?

No.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document satisfies all ID nits.

Note: The idnits tool mentions an "unresolved reference" because
      the string "[PSN]" is used in a figure. This will be resolved
      during AUTH48.


   (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 [<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3967>RFC3967]?


References have been split into normative and informative.
All normative references are already published RFCs.

Some of the informative references are drafts.

This draft is referenced (informative) by draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-10.txt
using its old name (draft-nmcgill-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions).
The authors have been contacted to update the reference on their next
revision.


   (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?

Yes.

   (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 on this document using any formal language.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.

* Technical Summary

  This document defines additional Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3
  (L2TPv3) bit values to be used within the "Circuit Status" Attribute
  Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for
  circuits and pseudowires.

  It also generalizes the "Active" bit and deprecates the use of
  the "New" bit in the "Circuit Status" AVP, updating RFC3931, RFC4349,
  RFC4454, RFC4591, and RFC4719.

* Working Group Summary

  There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

* Document Quality

  The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during
  review and last call have been addressed.

  Ignacio Goyret is the WG shepherd for this document.

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

Cheers,
-Ignacio Goyret
l2tpext WG chair