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.
(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?
The intended status is Proposed Standard. This is the appropriate status
because the document provides the base specification for Fast-Reroute using
Maximally Redundant Trees. Yes, the correct status is indicated on the title
page.
(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
This document gives a solution for IP/LDP fast-reroute, referred to as
Fast-Reroute with Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR). MRT-FRR creates two
alternate trees separate from the primary next-hop forwarding used during
stable operation. These two trees are maximally diverse from each other,
providing link and node protection for 100% of paths and failures as long as
the failure does not cut the network into multiple pieces. This document
defines the base specification for IP/LDP fast-reroute with MRT. The algorithm
for the computation of the Maximally Redundant Trees is specified in
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm. The associated protocol extensions are
defined in draft-ietf-ospf-mrt and draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt.
Working Group Summary
There is consensus in the WG to proceed with the publication of the document
and the majority agrees with it as a Proposed Standard. One WG member proposes
to publish the document as an Informational RFC.
Document Quality
There are existing implementations and multiple vendors have shown significant
interest in the topic.
Personnel
Document Shepherd: János Farkas
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana
(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.
In addition to monitoring the discussions on the list, the shepherd reviewed
the document. The document is ready for publication. Some comments have been
submitted on the document days after the closing date of the WGLC. The main
comment being the publication of the draft as an Informational RFC instead of
Proposed Standard.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
(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 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.
Yes. The authors have been asked about IPR and they answered on the WG list.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
Yes, the document has IPR disclosures attached from the authors. No concerns
have been raised in the WG.
(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?
This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG and the majority agrees with
it as a Proposed Standard. MRT has been discussed widely in the WG and the WG
is not aware of open technical issues. MRT is understood to be an item in the
FRR toolkit. It is also understood that MRT has its pros and cons similarly to
any of the FRR technologies. There is one WG member who expressed his opinion
against MRT who also stated not being aware of any technical issue with the MRT
design . He proposes to publish the document as an Informational RFC.
(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.
(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.
Comments have been sent to the WG list.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
(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?
ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm is a normative reference. The two drafts
ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture and ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm go together
through the process.
(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.
(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.
(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 document requests the creation of a new IANA registry in order to be able
to distinguish different MRT Profiles. The draft specifies the value range and
the division of the value space for the different kind of Profiles.
(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 Expert Review required.
(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.
N/A