Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute
draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-02

  The MPLS working group request that

          Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute
                draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-01

  Is published as a RFC on the standards track (proposed standard)

(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?

  This document updates another standards track RFC ( RFC 6790) and
  and need to be on the standards track.

  The document header says "standard 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

  RFC 6790 defines the BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute.
  RFC 67890 has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that Entropy
  Label-incapable routers must remove the attribute, in practice this
  requirement can't be guaranteed to be fulfilled.  This specification
  deprecates the attribute.  A forthcoming document will propose a
  replacement.

Working Group Summary

  This document is simple and takes an action that is generally agreed
  upon. The working group supports this document, no especially rough
  points.

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?

      There tow different question that need to be answered in this context.
      - are there  implementations of the BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute
        as defined in RFC 6790?
        The answer to that questions that we are not aware of such implementations.
      - are implementations of this draft that deprecate the BGP Entropy Label
        Capability Attribute?
        The answer tho that question this is a document that deprecate the capability
        attribute. All know implementations does not implement this attribute. the
        reason; whether this shroud  be viewed as an "implementation" could be
        debated,  the Document is of the opinion that it not of value to treat this as
        an implementation and no implementation poll has been issued.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

      Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
      2014-10-22 -
      Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible AD
      (Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD)
      Since both co-authors of this draft and both ADs have the same
    affiliation it has been agreed that Spencer Dawkins will step in and
    take the role as responsible AD.

(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 several times,
      when the document were first published, as part of the MPLS-RT review
      performed by the wg chairs and prior to wg poll and wglc.

      This document 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.

      No such reviews necessary.

(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.

      Yes, they have confirmed that they are unaware of any relevant IPRs,
      however there is hard to imagine that there is patentable material in
      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 IPRs filed 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? 

      This document represents a strong consensus in the working group.

(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 threats.

(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.

      This document passes the ID nits tool clean.

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

      No such reviews necessary.

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

      Yes the references are correctly divided in  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 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 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 - there are no status changes 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 clearly and well written.

(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 registries are defined and no need for 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 reviews needed!

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-01.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments:

IANA understands that this document requires a single action upon approval.

In the BGP Path Attributes registry under the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters heading at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/

IANA will change the description for value 28 from "BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute" to "BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute (deprecated)" and add this document as a reference.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute'
  as Proposed
Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-11-03. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  RFC 6790 defines the BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute.
  Regrettably, it has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that Entropy
  Label-incapable routers must remove the attribute, in practice this
  requirement can't be guaranteed to be fulfilled.  This specification
  deprecates the attribute.  A forthcoming document will propose a
  replacement.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

  The MPLS working group request that

          Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute
                draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-01

  Is published as a RFC on the standards track (proposed standard)

(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?

  This document updates another standards track RFC ( RFC 6790) and
  and need to be on the standards track.

  The document header says "standard 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

  RFC 6790 defines the BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute.
  RFC 67890 has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that Entropy
  Label-incapable routers must remove the attribute, in practice this
  requirement can't be guaranteed to be fulfilled.  This specification
  deprecates the attribute.  A forthcoming document will propose a
  replacement.

Working Group Summary

  This document is simple and takes an action that is generally agreed
  upon. The working group supports this document, no especially rough
  points.

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?

      There tow different question that need to be answered in this context.
      - are there  implementations of the BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute
        as defined in RFC 6790?
        The answer to that questions that we are not aware of such implementations.
      - are implementations of this draft that deprecate the BGP Entropy Label
        Capability Attribute?
        The answer tho that question this is a document that deprecate the capability
        attribute. All know implementations does not implement this attribute. the
        reason; whether this shroud  be viewed as an "implementation" could be
        debated,  the Document is of the opinion that it not of value to treat this as
        an implementation and no implementation poll has been issued.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

      Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
      Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD

(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 several times,
      when the document were first published, as part of the MPLS-RT review
      performed by the wg chairs and prior to wg poll and wglc.

      This document 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.

      No such reviews necessary.

(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.

      Yes, they have confirmed that they are unaware of any relevant IPRs,
      however there is hard to imagine that there is patentable material in
      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 IPRs filed 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? 

      This document represents a strong consensus in the working group.

(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 threats.

(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.

      This document passes the ID nits tool clean.

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

      No such reviews necessary.

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

      Yes the references are correctly divided in  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 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 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 - there are no status changes 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 clearly and well written.

(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 registries are defined and no need for 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 reviews needed!