Shepherd writeup

                 The MPLS working group request that 


             is published a an 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? 

   As a YANG model this document should be published as a Standard track RFC.


(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 MPLS base model augments the core routing model defined in 
   RFC8349 with additional data specific to MPLS technology  as described 
   in MPLS Architecture RFC3031. 
   RFC8349 requires specific YANG augmentations by any such routing protocol
   and these have been included.

   The MPLS base model serves as a basis for future development of MPLS
   data models covering specific MPLS feature(s) and sub-system(s).  
   The main purpose of the MPLS base is to provide building blocks for more
   complicated and data models, including different control plane protocols,
   and advanced MPLS functions.

   To this end, it is expected that the MPLS base data model will be
   augmented by other modules developed at IETF (e.g. by MPLS and TEAS
   working groups).

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? 

   The working group is solidly behind that the document.

Document Quality:

   We understand that there are implementations and intents to implement
   this YANG model, from a large number of vendors. However we have not 
   earlier documented implementations or intent to implement.

   An implementation poll has therefore been sent to the working group 
   mailing list.

   Tom Petch has done very thorough review, and had a positive influence
   on the document.

   THe document has been reviewed by the Yang Doctors several times.


   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.

   When this document came online the Shepherd reviewed, but at that time it 
   was not clear who the shepherd would be so this was a wg chair review to look
   at what was new.
   The shepherd was appointed just prior to the wglc, but reviewed the document
   at wgap and wglc.

(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 document has been reviewed bu the YANG doctors on the request of the authors
   prior to wgap and on the request of the Shepherd (via the authors) at wglc. 

(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 and contributors have confirmed that that they are unaware
   of any IPRs.

(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 IPRs disclosed 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 stands behinds this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

   The Shepherd has not identified any other nits than what the nits tool identify
   there is a BCP 14 boiler plate in section 1.1 Terminology, but the rest of the 
   document does not use any requirement language.

   Note: the Shepherd wants to discuss this with the authors since there are
   lower case musts in YANG Module, and the shepherd does not understand if
   they are equivalent to BCP 14 language.

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

   The YANG doctors have reviewed the document at several occasion. No further formal
   reviews are required.

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

    Yes - all references are split into normative and informative references,
    though the Shepherd would like to understand why RFC 3031 is an informative
    reference. Especially since the definition of MPLS push, pop and swap operations
    comes from RFC 3031.
    Same goes for RFC 3032 that defines the MPLS Label Stack encoding.

(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 Standard Track RFCs or BCPs.

(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 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.

  There will be n o status change of any other RFC when this documents is published.  

  However the development of this draft has resulted in an errata against  RFC8349.
  For route entries that appear IPv4/IPv6 RIBs, those are keyed by address and having 
  the leaf "destination-address" makes sense. However, route entries that appear in MPLS RIB
  are keyed by MPLS local label, so it would be misleading to have a leaf named 'destination-address' 
  for them. Hence, an errata to relax the 'MUST' in RFC8349 will be filed by the authors of this 

(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 8126). 

   The IANA section has been reviewed several time during the development of the 

(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 such registries created.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

   The YANG module is checked every time the document is posted.
   The YANG module is published on github and reviews, issues are tracked under the project.
   Pyang, yanglint, and yangvalidator tools were all used to ensure the module compiles and is free of errors.
   Pyang --ietf is used to ensure YANG module is compliant with IETF RFC YANG styles.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools ( for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

   All the tools mentioned above were used to validate the YANG module is free from errors.
   YANG module is compliant with NMDA