reply: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-05.txt
[email protected] Tue, 24 May 2011 11:28:59 +0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OFF14D73B5.1C8B858C-ON4825789A.0012EF0F-4825789A.0013232E@zte.com.cn> |
I have reviewed the draft. It is fine for me! James Carlson <[email protected]> 发件人: [email protected] 2011-05-24 04:54 收件人 [email protected] 抄送 主题 Re: [Pppext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-05.txt [email protected] wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol > Author(s) : James Carlson > Filename : draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-05.txt > Pages : 7 > Date : 2011-05-23 > > 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. I made a few very minor edits to pass through the id-nits checker. Document shepherd write-up is attached. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]> (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. _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext