As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-06
(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 requested status is Proposed Standard. The Document is a protocol
specification which requires the assignment of code points by the IANA,
as well as the creation of a "Standards Action" registry for those code points.
This justifies the type of RFC being requested.
The requested status is indicated in the header.
(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:
Many service providers offer "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to their
customers. Existing IETF standards specify the procedures and
protocols that a service provider uses in order to offer this service
to customers who have IP unicast and IP multicast traffic in their
VPNs. It is also desirable to be able to support customers who have
MPLS multicast traffic in their VPNs. This document specifies the
procedures and protocol extensions that are needed to support
customers who use the Multicast Extensions to Label Distribution
Protocol (mLDP) as the control protocol for their MPLS multicast
traffic. Existing standards do provide some support for customers
who use mLDP, but only under a restrictive set of circumstances.
This document generalizes the existing support to include all cases
where the customer uses mLDP, without any restrictions.
Working Group Summary
No controversy around this Document which provides
a simple solution to address a limitation of RFC 6514.
There are no known implementation/implementation plans. The lack of
implementation/implementation plan for a Proposed Standard might raise the
question of the need for such document or at least of the timeliness for requesting
its publication. The Document in fact addresses a limitation in RFC 6514 but at the
same time asks for the creation of a registry that does not exist and the creation of
which should have been requested by RFC 6514. The creation of such registery is
important to clearly set the possible ranges and allocation policies, avoiding future
conflicts in the use of code-points encoded on the wire.
The Document has been reviewed by a few experts.
The Document Shepherd also reviewed several times the Document.
Martin Vigoureux, L3VPN co-chair is the Document Shepherd
Adrian Farrel is the Responsible (Routing) 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 Document Shepherd has done an in-depth review of the Document
which led to clarifications and enhancements as part of the WG Last Call.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. Although this document has been presented at several IETF meetings,
there hasn't been discussion on the list concerning this Document.
Yet, this Document addresses a quite specific use case which was incorrectly
covered by the base specification (RFC 6514) and does so by proposing a simple
(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
No need for such particular review
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosure exists in relation to 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?
There has been a little number of expressions of support at the time of the WG LC
(more at the time of WG adoption). This however does not reflect the value of the
(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 extreme position was expressed.
(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
ID nits check is 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 review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or 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?
All Normative references are published 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 downward reference
(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.
Yes. This Document updates RFC 6514. This is suggested in the Abstract and
clearly stated in the Introduction. Motivations for the update are also given in the
Document (See Section 2. Why This Document is Needed)
(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 Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed the IANA section so that it meets
as best as possible the expectations set by RFC 5226. The IANA section is
consistent with the corpus of the Document.
The name of the requested registry is correctly given as well as its "place" in the
overall IANA protocol registries. The registry has all the initial content correctly
defined. Allocation policy is specified. Guidelines for future allocations are also
(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.
The defined registry does not require Expert Review
(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 section so no such review performed.