(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?
Internet Standard
(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
Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode,
and Ethernet) can be "emulated" over an MPLS backbone by
encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDU) and then
transmitting them over "pseudowires". It is also possible to use
pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and
Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled
network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and
maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP). Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2
PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.
This document has been written to address errata in a previous
version of this standard.
Working Group Summary
This was reviewed by the WG. There is nothing contentious.
Document Quality
There are many implementations of this protocol.
Personnel
Stewart Bryant 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.
The Document Shepherd personally reviewed the document and it is
ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I have no 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 specialist review is required
(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.
I have no concerns about this document.
(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.
We checked with the authors of this version, but not with the
authors of the original RFC4447. There were no IPR filings against
RFC4447.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR filings show up on datatracker.
(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 support is solid.
(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.)
There has been no threat of an appeal
(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 two documents that are obsoleted by this doument are
noted in the header but not noted in the Abstract. This will
be fixed in a future version.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.
(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?
No.
(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.
There are the following Downrefs: RFC3032, RFC5036, RFC7358
These are mature documents with many implementations.
RFC4446 is also a Downref, however all of the IANA requests
it makes were implemented at least 10 years ago
(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 goal was to only make the minium changes to the original text.
A new section was added before the Introduction that discusses the
status change of these 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 requests that IANA replaces references to
RFC4447 with references to this RFC in the following registries:
"TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036
"STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036
"FEC Type Name Space" for the Label Distribution Protocol defined by RFC5036
There are no new registries created and there are no addition to
any registries need by this document.
(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.
Not applicable
(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.
Not applicable.