Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-05.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? 

	The document shepherd is James Carlson, also the author and WG
	chair.  The shepherd has reviewed this version of the document
	and believes 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?  

	The document has had review from both key WG participants
	(Bill Simpson, Vern Schryver) and from key participants in the
	TRILL WG (Jon Hudson, Yizhou Li, Don Eastlake).

	The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth or
	breadth 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? 

	The document shepherd believes that all relevant areas have
	reviewed the document and contributed.

  (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 specific concerns, and no known IPR.

  (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?   

	The document has concurrence from the individuals who have
	participated in the discussion.

	The vast majority of the working group is typically silent, so
	hearing at all from them is unusual, and a positive sign for
	the document.

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

	No threats are known.  The one dissenting issue -- Bill
	Simpson's concern about IS-IS System ID in a deployment with
	no source of System ID generation -- has been dealt with
	successfully by creating a new draft that addresses the
	situation for IS-IS and adding a reference in this document.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        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 document shepherd has put the current text through all of
	those checks, and it satisfies the checker and has no known
	additional criteria to meet.

  (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, it has references split into normative and informative.

	There's one downward reference, and it's in the informative
	reference list.  This is to Bill Simpson's "Generation of
	Unique IS-IS System Identifiers" draft.

  (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 is present and describes the
	new values introduced by this document.  The registries are
	clearly identified and the allocation procedures are noted.

  (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? 

	No formal languages are present in the draft.

  (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 

	The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) defines a Link Control
	Protocol (LCP) and a method for negotiating the use of
	multi-protocol traffic over point-to-point links.  This
	document describes PPP support for Transparent Interconnection
	of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol, allowing direct
	communication between Routing Bridges (RBridges) via PPP
	links.

     Working Group Summary 

	There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.  There
	was some discussion in the working group about IS-IS System
	IDs, and the draft reflects the consensus.

     Document Quality 

	There is a long list of vendors implementing TRILL, but at
	this point there are none that have announced support for
	TRILL over PPP.  The PPP extensions described here are
	trivial, and the overall system implementation issues have
	been discussed in detail with several of the TRILL WG
	participants.  No significant implementation, deployment, or
	interoperability concerns exist.

	Significant reviewers include Bill Simpson, Donald Eastlake,
	and Vern Schryver.