FW: Chair write-up of: "NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling"

FYI: John and I have sent this out to our ADs. 

  Martin

[email protected]   <== NEW ADDRESS

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:45 PM
> To: Magnus Westerlund
> Cc: Lars Eggert; [email protected]; Hannes Tschofenig
> Subject: Chair write-up of: "NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling"
> 
> The draft "NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling" has been 
> reviewed by the NSIS WG. 
> 
> There was a working group last call that ended on June 25, 2007. 
> Additionally to this, the draft has been implemented by 
> several parties. The implementations are code independent and 
> have been tested for interoperability at several interops. 
> The list of currently avaialable QoS NSLP implementations is here:
> http://www.stiemerling.org/blog/?page_id=3
> 
> 
> The I-D is now ready for AD and IESG review. Below are 
> details about the I-D:
> 
> Title:  NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling
> I-D: 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-16.txt
> 
> Status: Proposed Standard
> 
> Response to template:
> 
> 1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
>    they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
>    for publication? 
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> 
> 2) 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?
> 
> Yes. The ID has passed working group last calls, has had good 
> reviews during the process, and good feedback by implementors.
> 
> 3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
>    particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
>    complexity, etc.)? 
> 
> No concerns.  The document has undergone extensive Working 
> Group review, and has several (at least 3) interoperable 
> implementations.
> 
> 4) 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 whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
>    time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
>    indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.
> 
> No
> 
> 5) 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 is a strong consensus in the WG supporting this work, 
> at this point there is no disenting voices about the protocol 
> in the WG.
> 
> 6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>    discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.
> 
> No. 
> 
> 7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
>    ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
>    and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
>    also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
>    (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
>    references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
>    also ready for publication as RFCs.)
> 
> The document does split references into normative and 
> informative ones. 
> 
> 9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
>    announcement includes a writeup section with the following
>    sections:
> 
>    - Technical Summary
> 
> This draft proposes an NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) 
> for signaling QoS reservations in the Internet. The NSLP is 
> the second layer in the two-layer signaling model defined in 
> RFC 4080. Together with GIST (draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp), it 
> provides functionality similar to RSVP and extends it. The 
> QoS NSLP is independent of the used QoS specification or 
> architecture and provides support for different reservation models.
> 
> 
>    - Working Group Summary
> 
> There have been several WGLC on the document, plus several 
> pre-WGLCs on the document. The editors have gotten extensive 
> feedback from implementors and have clarified text based upon 
> the feedback.  There are 3 or more independent 
> implementations of the QoS NSLP, and there were multiple 
> interop events in the past.
> 
>    - Protocol Quality
> 
> This document was reviewed by the working group chair as well 
> as the WG. We feel that this document is ready, and 
> implementors feel that the specification is implementable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC 
> Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria 
> Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 
>