The MPLS working Group requests that
draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework
is published as an RFC on the Standard Tracks
Note: 2019-06-01: Working group summary has been updated.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
We request Proposed Standard.
It is the right type since the document describes normative
procedures for MPLS Egress protection.
The title page header says, "Standards Track".
(2) 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 document specifies fast reroute procedures to protect IP/MPLS
services and MPLS tunnels against egress node and egress link
failures. When an egress node failure occurs the penultimate-hop
router of a tunnel acts as the point of local repair (PLR). When
an egress link failure occurs the egress router of the MPLS tunnel
acts as the PLR. In both cases there is a pre-established bypass
tunnel to a protector. Upon an egress node or link failure, the
PLR does local failure detection and local repair. Packets are
re-routed over the bypass tunnel.
The protector performs context label switching or context IP
forwarding to send the packets to the ultimate destination.7
Working Group Summary
This document is the convergence of several initiatives in the IETF
and in the industry in general. The working group and more
specifically the authors have invested a huge effort to converge on
a single solution.
The list of authors on the title page include 7 names, more than
the recommendation of a maximum of 5. The shepherd is personally
convinced that the current number of authors should be kept. In
discussion between the authors and wg chairs, the authors have
agreed on the following motivation why there should be 7 authors
listed,
"The egress protection framework is a generic framework with an
ambition to addresses protection at both transport tunnel level
and service level, and a broad scope to accommodate services and
transport tunnels of any type. In IETF, it has gone through almost
8 years of extensive and cautious study and discussions, and
through many clashes and merges of ideas, it has finally evolved
from a set of separate solutions for individual services (i.e.
PWE3, Layer-3 VPN) to a unified multi-service and multi-transport
architecture. Outside of IETF, it has also involved both hard
development work on the vendor’s side, and bold actions of
deployment on the service provider’s side. Many people have made
a great amount of effort in this long course. There are also
people who helped to promote and shape of the idea of egress
protection, draw attention to this draft, and bring the draft to
this stage. The current list of authors just reflects their effort
and contribution. Without them, it would impossible for the draft
to achieve its current status. Hence, we’d like request to keep
the author list as it is. Thanks for your understanding."
Note for version -05 of the document:
Between version -04 and -05 one person listed as an author
in the earlier versions of the documents has decided that in
the interest to smoothly progress the document he should
now longer listed as an co-author. The number of listed
co-authors are now down to 6.
Yuanlong Jiang are now listed in the Acknowledgement
section.
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
It has been a long process, and the initially the positions of
the participants were far from each other. However, the
discussion to reach consensus has been very contructive and at
times slow, and we now have good wg support for the draft.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
We know of both implementations and deployments, as informed
by one major European vendor. We have in addition started an
Implementation Poll and the write-up will be updated as soon
as we get further information.
The group that has been working on this has been fairly large
and any reviewer that is worth mentioning is possibly included in
the 15 people listed as authors and in the acknowledgement
section. The MPLS-RT did as usual a good job and together with
the authors nailed down a couple of issues.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd
Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
This document has been discussed frequently for a long time it first
appeared together with a "companion document" on ingress
protection (published as RFC 8424), the shepherd has reviewed the
document when it was first posted, before issuing the poll for
working group adoption and working group last call.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No such reviews necessary.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.
No such concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
All the authors have stated on the working group mailing list that
they unaware of any IPRs relating to this draft than those that
has been disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There are three IPR disclosures against this document. The working
group has been made aware of the disclosures both when the
document was adopted as a working document and at wglc.
No concerns has been raised.
(9) 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 working group is behind this document, it is viewed as a
necessary extension to other MPLS protection mechanisms.
(10) 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 publicly available.)
No such threats.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
The document passes the nits tool clean.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, the references are correctly split into normative and
informative.
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
Of the three normative references one is on "Waiting for
write-up"-state, one is in the RFC Editors queue and draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing has been published as RFC 8402.
However, the document in the RFC Editors queue has a MIS-REF, this
MIS-REF is shared but other documents and the SPRING and MPLS are
working to resolve it.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
All the normative references have "Proposed Standard" as intended
status, this should not be construed as downward reference, but it
might take time to get the two remaining documents through to
RFCs.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
The publication of this document will not change the status of
any other RFC.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
This document does not make any requests for IANA actions. Maybe
note to the RFC Editor to remove the IANA section before
publication should be added.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No new IANA registries
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No such reviews and automated checks necessary.