Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib

Shepherd write-up related to version -09
============================

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 23 September 2014.

   The MPLS Working Group request that
   MPLS-TP Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)
         draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib-09
   is published as a RFC on the standards track

(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 reqeust:
  Type of RFC: Proposed Standard
  This is a MIB module and needs to be on the standards track, since it
  specifies new Protocol Elements.
  The Document 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 defines a portion of the MIB for use with network management
   protocols, and describes managed objects for Tunnels, Identifiers, Label
   Switching Router and Textual conventions for MPLS-TP.

   These MIB modules extend the existing MPLS MIB objects for both MPLS
   and MPLS-TP operations, because of this the MPLS-TP name is not included
   in the MIB module names.

   The existing MPLS-TE MIB [RFC3812] and the GMPLS-TE MIB [RFC4802] do
   not support the transport network requirements of NON-IP based management
   and static bidirectional tunnels. The MIB modules defined in
   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib should be used in conjunction with [RFC3812] and
   its companion document [RFC3813] for MPLS-TP tunnel configuration and
   management.

Working Group Summary

  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?

  There has been no such rough consensus decisions.

Document Quality
 
   We know of several implementations of the MIB module.
   There are significant number of vendors that either has or
   will implement the MIB module.

Personnel

  Young Lee is the Document Shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel 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.

   The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document after the current version
   has been uploaded (v.09) and believed that the document is ready to be
   forwarded to the IESG.

   However it should be noted that the Document Shepherd is not an MIB
   expert, the real detailed review has been performed by Joan Cucchiara,
   both in the MPLS-RT review and during wglc (as a repreentative) for the
   MIB Doctors.

   This version is ready for publication.

(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.

   The reviews performed by the working group and the MIB doctors
   are what is needed.

(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.

   Each author has confirmed on the mpls mailing list that they are
   unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.

(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 no IPR disclosures against this document.

(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 supports this document.

(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 conflicts or discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://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 not-check clean.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   The document has been reviewed by and discussed with the MIB Doctors.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

   Yes.

(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?

   All the normative references are to existing RFCs.

(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.

   No - no downward references.

(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.

   No such changes to other RFCs.

(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).

   The IANA section is well and clearly written, all the registries are
   clearly identified.

(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, no new future expert reviews needed.

(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.

   The Shepherd has not personally verified the MIB definitions.

   The authors confirmed that the MIB module has been compiled
   and verified.

Shepherd write-up related to version -07:
===========================

This version of the write-up is kept for historical reasons, but should not
necessarily be considered by the IESG,

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

   The MPLS Working Group request that 

    MPLS-TP Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)
                           draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib-07

   Is published as a RFC on the standards track

(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 reqeust:

  Type of RFC: Proposed Standard
  This is a MIB module and needs to be on the standards track, since it 
   specifies new Protocol Elements.
  The Document 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 defines a portion of the MIB for use with network management
   protocols, and describes managed objects for Tunnels, Identifiers, Label
   Switching Router and Textual conventions for MPLS-TP. 

   These MIB modules extend the existing MPLS MIB objects for both MPLS
   and MPLS-TP operations, because of this the MPLS-TP name is not included 
   in the MIB module names.

   The existing MPLS-TE MIB [RFC3812] and the GMPLS-TE MIB [RFC4802] do 
   not support the transport network requirements of NON-IP based management 
   and static bidirectional tunnels. The MIB modules defined  in 
   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib should be used in conjunction with [RFC3812] and 
   its companion document [RFC3813] for MPLS-TP tunnel configuration and
   management.


Working Group Summary

  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?

  There has been no such rough consensus decisions.

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 several implementations of the MIB module.
   There are  significant number of vendors that either has or
   will implement the MIB module.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel 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.

   The Document Shepherd has review the document priori to the poll
   to make it a working document and prior to the working group last call.
   However it should be noted that the Document Shepherd is not an MIB
   expert, the real detailed review has been performed by Joan Cucchiara,
   both in the MPLS-RT review and during wglc (as a repreentative) for the
   MIB Doctors.

  This version is ready for publication.

(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.

   The reviews performed by the working group and the MIB doctors
   are what is needed.

(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.

   Each author has confirmed on the mpls mailing list that they are 
   unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.

(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 no IPR disclosures against this document.

(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 supports this document. 

(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 conflicts or discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://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 not-check clean.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   The document has been reviewed by and discussed with the MIB Doctors.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

   Yes.

(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?

   All the normative references are to existing RFCs.

(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. 

   No - no downward references.

(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.

   No such changes to other RFCs.


(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).

   The IANA section is well and clearly written, all the registries are 
   clearly identified.

(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, no new future expert reviews needed.

(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.

   The Shepherd has not personally verified the MIB definitions. 

   The authors confirmed that the MIB module has been compiled
   and verified.


Back