MPLS Egress Protection Framework
draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework-07

[Ballot discuss]
A few questions about the Security Considerations:

(1) Section 11.  I appreciate that this a framework document that is trying to be generic.  Section 4 (and others) seem to lay out generic requirements.  However, this Security Considerations section is both vague on the protocol choices (understandable) and the security services/properties they would have (the gap).  For example, “The general security measures of the protocols SHOULD be used whenever applicable.” and “The available security measures of the chosen protocol SHOULD be used to achieve a secured session between the two routers.”  Some discussion of what a “secured session” would look like would be helpful.

(2) Section 11.  What are the elements and enablers of “a certain level of trust … [being] established between the routers for the protocols to run securely”?

[Ballot comment]
(3) Section 4.  Per “The framework MUST consider minimizing disruption during deployment”, why is this MUST only to _consider_ minimizing rather than actually minimizing the disruption?

(4) Section 5.7.  Per “a globally unique IPv4/v6 address  is assigned to a protected egress {E, P} as the identifier of the protected egress {E, P}”, I recommend being explicit and saying and s/IPv4\\v6/IPv4 or v6/

(5) Section 9.  I’m missing something obvious -- what is a “label table pe2.mpls”?

[Ballot comment]
I recommend to use the exact boilerplate text from RFC8174:
      "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
      "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
      described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
      appear in all capitals, as shown here."

Editorial comments:

1) I recommend to either move the requirement section to the appendix or rephrase this section to outline features of the final framework instead of stating requirements.

2) section 5.2: "The mechanisms SHOULD be reasonably fast"
Alvaro also commented on this sentence, however, I think the resolution here is to not use normatively language because that is not needed.

[Ballot comment]
I recommend to use the exact boilerplate text from RFC8174:
      "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
      "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
      described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
      appear in all capitals, as shown here."

Editorial comments:

1) I recommend to either more the requirement section to the appendix or rephrase this section to outline features of the final framework instead of stating requirements.

2) section 5.2: "The mechanisms SHOULD be reasonably fast"
Alvaro also commented on this sentence, however, I think the resolution here is to not use normatively language because that is not needed.

[Ballot comment]
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for addressing Scott Bradner's OpsDir review, and Scott for providing it. I think that this has noticeably improved the document.

I have a general question -- like many documents, this talks about "link failure", but is somewhat silent on what exactly is meant by "link" -- is this a "circuit" or does it also include something like TE / bundled (RFC4201) / aggregated / whatever links? The terminology section somewhat hints that it covers all, but is still somewhat vague.
(Note that this is just a comment, feel free to consider and reject it... )

[Ballot comment]
(1) [nit] The MP and the protector are the same thing, right?  Names are just that...but it seems that using MP avoids adding one more name for the same thing.

(2) §1: "The framework is described by mainly referring to P2P...it is equally applicable to P2MP...MP2P...and MP2MP...if the sub-LSPs of these tunnels can be viewed as P2P tunnels."  This statement is reflected in one of the requirements in §4.  Are there cases where P2MP/MP2P/MP2MP tunnels cannot be treated as p2p?  If so, then please add some text about that to scope the applicability.

(3) §1: "The framework does see the need for extensions of IGPs and service label distribution protocols in some procedures, particularly for supporting protection establishment and context label switching.  This document provides guidelines for these extensions, but leaves the specific details to separate documents."  Leaving the details to separate documents is fine.  However, the document is not clear/straight forward about which procedures might need extensions and which do not.  In particular, I think that this document, and future work, would benefit from a clear indication of where particular procedures are documented (which might mean adding a lot of more references), or, even better, a clear indication of the ones that are not already documented.

(4) §1: "It is RECOMMENDED that the framework SHOULD be used in conjunction with control-plane convergence or global repair..."  RECOMMENDED and SHOULD have the same meaning.  This sentence is redundant.

(5) §3: "A protector MAY be physically co-located with or decoupled from a backup egress router..."  I think that the MAY is out of place because it isn't specifying anything, just stating a fact.  s/MAY/may

(6) §4: s/considers the followings/considers the following

(7) §4 (Requirements)  Are there requirements listed in this section that are not satisfied in the document?  I expect the answer to be No.  I don't think that using Normative Language in this Section is a good thing because it is not being used to require any type of interoperability (as can be argued for the rest of the document), but only to define requirements that should be satisfied in this same document. 

(8) §5.2: "The mechanisms SHOULD be reasonably fast, i.e., faster than control plane failure detection and remote failure detection."  When would it be ok for this mechanism to be slower?  IOW, why isn't MUST used?

(9) §5.2: In the list of guidelines a difference between "a reasonably fast mechanism" and "a fast mechanism" seems to be made.  The implication (from the previous comment) is that a "fast mechanism" is not fast enough (because it is slower that the control plane).  In the context of this section what seems important is the ability to distinguish between a link failure and an egress node failure, or not...and not whether the mechanism is reasonably fast or simply fast.  Suggestion: s//PLR has a mechanism

(10) §5.2: "treating a link failure as an egress node failure MUST NOT have a negative impact on services"  How can the PLR figure the impact on the services beforehand?

(11) §5.3: "each service destination MUST be dual-homed or have dual paths to the egress router and a backup egress router which serves as the protector."  I don't think it is a requirement for the backup to always be the protector.  s/backup egress router which serves as the protector/backup egress router which may serve as the protector

(12) §5.4: "A given egress router E MAY be the tailend of multiple tunnels."  The MAY is out of place, the sentence just states a fact. s/MAY/may

(13) "MAY or MAY not" is used a couple of times to show an optional behavior.  MAY already means optional.  In all cases in this document I don't think that Normative language is needed. s/MAY or MAY not/may or may not

(14) §5.6: s/The bypass tunnel MUST have the property that it MUST NOT be affected by the topology change caused by an egress node failure./The bypass tunnel MUST NOT be affected by the topology change caused by an egress node failure.

(15) s/IPv4/v6/IPv4/IPv6

(16) §5.7: "The PLR MAY establish the egress-protection bypass tunnel to P in several manners."  The MAY is just stating a fact.  s/MAY/may

(17) Please expand UHP.

(18) §5.8: "The advertisement MUST be understood by the PLR."  On one hand, I think this is an obvious statement, and is not needed.  On the other hand, I get the feeling that it was included because there is something else to be considered...but I don't know what, and the text doesn't say.  If there is something specific to be considered, please write it down.

(19) §5.8: "The "context ID label binding" advertisement is defined as IGP mirroring context segment in [RFC8402], [SR-OSPF] and [SR-ISIS]."  The mirror context segment is not defined for OSPF.

(20) §5.8: "...care MUST be taken for the applicability of this approach to a network."  What does that mean?  How can it be Normatively enforced?  It would be nice to spell out the potential pitfalls to be taken into account.  The sentence right after says that "the feasibility of each approach in a given network as dependent on the topology, manageability, and available protocols of the network."  This statement sounds like it should result in guidance (even if general) on when an approach may be applicable.  I would like to see that type of guidance somewhere in the document -- the Operational Considerations sections looks ideal to me.

(21) §5.9: "An egress-protection bypass tunnel MAY be established via several methods:"  I think that all the MAYs in the bullets are not needed because of the one at the top.  In fact, I think all of them (including the one at the top) just state a fact (not a Normative action).  s/MAY/may

(22) §5.11: "Specific extensions MAY be needed..."  Again, just a fact.  s/MAY/may'

(23) §5.11: "The details of the extensions SHOULD be specified in separate documents."  Where else would they be specified?  IOW, why not use MUST?  Or even better, why is Normative language even needed?

(24) §7: s/it is RECOMMENDED that the services affected by a failure SHOULD be moved to/the services affected by a failure SHOULD be moved to  RECOMMENDED = SHOULD

(25) §8: s/it is RECOMMENDED that the router SHOULD generate/it is RECOMMENDED that the router generate    RECOMMENDED = SHOULD

(26) §10: "The nexthops of these routes MUST be...  The nexthops MUST NOT use..."  This section is an example, there should not be any Normative language.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-06-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: mpls@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Loa Andersson , loa@pi.nu
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (MPLS Egress Protection Framework) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'MPLS Egress Protection
Framework'
  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 2019-06-17. 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


  This document specifies a fast reroute framework for protecting IP/
  MPLS services and MPLS transport tunnels against egress node and
  egress link failures.  For each type of egress failure, it defines
  the roles of point of local repair (PLR), protector, and backup
  egress router, and the procedures of establishing a bypass tunnel
  from a PLR to a protector.  It describes the behaviors of these
  routers in handling an egress failure, including local repair on the
  PLR, and context based forwarding on the protector.  The framework
  can be used to develop egress protection mechanisms to reduce traffic
  loss before global repair reacts to an egress failure and control
  plane protocols converge on the topology changes due to the egress
  failure.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3120/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3113/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2878/

The MPLS working Group requests that

  draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework

is published as an RFC on the Standard Tracks

Note: 2019-06-01: Working group summary has been updated.

(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?

  We request Proposed Standard.
  It is the right type since the document describes normative
  procedures for MPLS Egress protection.
  The title page header says, "Standards 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

  The document specifies fast reroute procedures to protect IP/MPLS
  services and MPLS tunnels against egress node and egress link
  failures. When an egress node failure occurs the penultimate-hop
  router of a tunnel acts as the point of local repair (PLR). When
  an egress link failure occurs the egress router of the MPLS tunnel
  acts as the PLR. In both cases there is a pre-established bypass
  tunnel to a protector. Upon an egress node or link failure, the
  PLR does local failure detection and local repair. Packets are
  re-routed over the bypass tunnel.
  The protector performs context label switching or context IP
  forwarding to send the packets to the ultimate destination.7

Working Group Summary

  This document is the convergence of several initiatives in the IETF
  and in the industry in general. The working group and more
  specifically the authors have invested a huge effort to converge on
  a single solution.

  The list of authors on the title page include 7 names, more than
  the recommendation of a maximum of 5. The shepherd is personally
  convinced that the current number of authors should be kept. In
  discussion between the authors and wg chairs, the authors have
  agreed on the following motivation why there should be 7 authors
  listed,

  "The egress protection framework is a generic framework with an
  ambition to addresses protection at both transport tunnel level
  and service level, and a broad scope to accommodate services and
  transport tunnels of any type. In IETF, it has gone through almost
  8 years of extensive and cautious study and discussions, and
  through many clashes and merges of ideas, it has finally evolved
  from a set of separate solutions for individual services (i.e.
  PWE3, Layer-3 VPN) to a unified multi-service and multi-transport
  architecture. Outside of IETF, it has also involved both hard
  development work on the vendor’s side, and bold actions of
  deployment on the service provider’s side. Many people have made
  a great amount of effort in this long course. There are also
  people who helped to promote and shape of the idea of egress
  protection, draw attention to this draft, and bring the draft to
  this stage. The current list of authors just reflects their effort
  and contribution. Without them, it would impossible for the draft
  to achieve its current status. Hence, we’d like request to keep
  the author list as it is. Thanks for your understanding."
 
  Note for version -05 of the document:
  Between version -04 and -05 one person listed as an author
  in the earlier versions of the documents has decided that in
  the interest to smoothly progress the document he should
  now longer listed as an co-author. The number of listed
  co-authors are now down to 6.
  Yuanlong Jiang are now listed in the Acknowledgement
  section.


  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?

    It has been a long process, and the initially the positions of
    the participants were far from each other. However, the
    discussion to reach consensus has been very contructive and at
    times slow, and we now have good wg support for the draft.

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?

  We know of both implementations and deployments, as informed
  by one major European vendor. We have in addition started an
  Implementation Poll and the write-up will be updated as soon
  as we get further information.

  The group that has been working on this has been fairly large
  and any reviewer that is worth mentioning is possibly included in
  the 15 people listed as authors and in the acknowledgement
  section. The MPLS-RT did as usual a good job and together with
  the authors nailed down a couple of issues.

Personnel

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

  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.

  This document has been discussed frequently for a long time it first
  appeared together with a "companion document" on ingress
  protection (published as RFC 8424), the shepherd has reviewed the
  document when it was first posted, before issuing the poll for
  working group adoption and working group last call.

(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.

  All the authors have stated on the working group mailing list that
  they unaware of any IPRs relating to this draft than those that
  has been disclosed.


(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 three IPR disclosures against this document. The working
  group has been made aware of the disclosures both when the
  document was adopted as a working document and at wglc.
  No concerns has been raised.

(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 is behind this document, it is viewed as a
  necessary extension to other MPLS protection mechanisms.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The document passes the 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 formal reviews required.

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

  Yes, the references are correctly split into normative and
  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?

  Of the three normative references one is on "Waiting for
  write-up"-state, one is in the RFC Editors queue and draft-
  ietf-spring-segment-routing has been published as RFC 8402.

  However, the document in the RFC Editors queue has a MIS-REF, this
  MIS-REF is shared but other documents and the SPRING and MPLS are
  working to resolve it.

(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.

  All the normative references have "Proposed Standard" as intended
  status, this should not be construed as downward reference, but it
  might take time to get the two remaining documents through to
  RFCs.

(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 publication of this document will not change the status of
  any other RFC.


(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).

  This document does not make any requests for IANA actions. Maybe
  note to the RFC Editor to remove the IANA section before
  publication should be added.

(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 IANA registries

(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 and automated checks necessary.

The MPLS working Group requests that

  draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework

is published as an RFC on the Standard Tracks

Note: 2019-06-01: Working group summary has been updated.

(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?

  We request Proposed Standard.
  It is the right type since the document describes normative
  procedures for MPLS Egress protection.
  The title page header says, "Standards 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

  The document specifies fast reroute procedures to protect IP/MPLS
  services and MPLS tunnels against egress node and egress link
  failures. When an egress node failure occurs the penultimate-hop
  router of a tunnel acts as the point of local repair (PLR). When
  an egress link failure occurs the egress router of the MPLS tunnel
  acts as the PLR. In both cases there is a pre-established bypass
  tunnel to a protector. Upon an egress node or link failure, the
  PLR does local failure detection and local repair. Packets are
  re-routed over the bypass tunnel.
  The protector performs context label switching or context IP
  forwarding to send the packets to the ultimate destination.7

Working Group Summary

  This document is the convergence of several initiatives in the IETF
  and in the industry in general. The working group and more
  specifically the authors have invested a huge effort to converge on
  a single solution.

  The list of authors on the title page include 7 names, more than
  the recommendation of a maximum of 5. The shepherd is personally
  convinced that the current number of authors should be kept. In
  discussion between the authors and wg chairs, the authors have
  agreed on the following motivation why there should be 7 authors
  listed,

  "The egress protection framework is a generic framework with an
  ambition to addresses protection at both transport tunnel level
  and service level, and a broad scope to accommodate services and
  transport tunnels of any type. In IETF, it has gone through almost
  8 years of extensive and cautious study and discussions, and
  through many clashes and merges of ideas, it has finally evolved
  from a set of separate solutions for individual services (i.e.
  PWE3, Layer-3 VPN) to a unified multi-service and multi-transport
  architecture. Outside of IETF, it has also involved both hard
  development work on the vendor’s side, and bold actions of
  deployment on the service provider’s side. Many people have made
  a great amount of effort in this long course. There are also
  people who helped to promote and shape of the idea of egress
  protection, draw attention to this draft, and bring the draft to
  this stage. The current list of authors just reflects their effort
  and contribution. Without them, it would impossible for the draft
  to achieve its current status. Hence, we’d like request to keep
  the author list as it is. Thanks for your understanding."
 
  Note for version -05 of the document:
  Between version -04 and -05 only person listed as an author
  in the earlier documents has decided that in the interest to
  smoothly progress the document he now longer should be
  listed as an co-author. The number of listed co-authors are
  now down to 6.
  Yuanlong Jiang are now listed in the Acknowledgement
  section.


  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?

    It has been a long process, and the initially the positions of
    the participants were far from each other. However, the
    discussion to reach consensus has been very contructive and at
    times slow, and we now have good wg support for the draft.

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?

  We know of both implementations and deployments, as informed
  by one major European vendor. We have in addition started an
  Implementation Poll and the write-up will be updated as soon
  as we get further information.

  The group that has been working on this has been fairly large
  and any reviewer that is worth mentioning is possibly included in
  the 15 people listed as authors and in the acknowledgement
  section. The MPLS-RT did as usual a good job and together with
  the authors nailed down a couple of issues.

Personnel

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

  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.

  This document has been discussed frequently for a long time it first
  appeared together with a "companion document" on ingress
  protection (published as RFC 8424), the shepherd has reviewed the
  document when it was first posted, before issuing the poll for
  working group adoption and working group last call.

(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.

  All the authors have stated on the working group mailing list that
  they unaware of any IPRs relating to this draft than those that
  has been disclosed.


(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 three IPR disclosures against this document. The working
  group has been made aware of the disclosures both when the
  document was adopted as a working document and at wglc.
  No concerns has been raised.

(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 is behind this document, it is viewed as a
  necessary extension to other MPLS protection mechanisms.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The document passes the 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 formal reviews required.

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

  Yes, the references are correctly split into normative and
  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?

  Of the three normative references one is on "Waiting for
  write-up"-state, one is in the RFC Editors queue and draft-
  ietf-spring-segment-routing has been published as RFC 8402.

  However, the document in the RFC Editors queue has a MIS-REF, this
  MIS-REF is shared but other documents and the SPRING and MPLS are
  working to resolve it.

(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.

  All the normative references have "Proposed Standard" as intended
  status, this should not be construed as downward reference, but it
  might take time to get the two remaining documents through to
  RFCs.

(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 publication of this document will not change the status of
  any other RFC.


(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).

  This document does not make any requests for IANA actions. Maybe
  note to the RFC Editor to remove the IANA section before
  publication should be added.

(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 IANA registries

(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 and automated checks necessary.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carsten Michel , Bruno Decraene , mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Jeyananth Jeganathan , Hannes Gredler , Yimin Shen , Huaimo Chen , Yuanlong Jiang

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carsten Michel , Bruno Decraene , Jeyananth Jeganathan , Hannes Gredler , Yimin Shen , Huaimo Chen , Yuanlong Jiang

The MPLS working Group requests that

  draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework

is published as an RFC on the Standard Tracks

(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?

  We request Proposed Standard.
  It is the right type since the document describes normative
  procedures for MPLS Egress protection.
  The title page header says, "Standards 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

  The document specifies fast reroute procedures to protect IP/MPLS
  services and MPLS tunnels against egress node and egress link
  failures. When an egress node failure occurs the penultimate-hop
  router of a tunnel acts as the point of local repair (PLR). When
  an egress link failure occurs the egress router of the MPLS tunnel
  acts as the PLR. In both cases there is a pre-established bypass
  tunnel to a protector. Upon an egress node or link failure, the
  PLR does local failure detection and local repair. Packets are
  re-routed over the bypass tunnel.
  The protector performs context label switching or context IP
  forwarding to send the packets to the ultimate destination.7

Working Group Summary

  This document is the convergence of several initiatives in the IETF
  and in the industry in general. The working group and more
  specifically the authors have invested a huge effort to converge on
  a single solution.

  The list of authors on the title page include 7 names, more than
  the recommendation of a maximum of 5. The shepherd is personally
  convinced that the current number of authors should be kept. In
  discussion between the authors and wg chairs, the authors have
  agreed on the following motivation why there should be 7 authors
  listed,

  "The egress protection framework is a generic framework with an
  ambition to addresses protection at both transport tunnel level
  and service level, and a broad scope to accommodate services and
  transport tunnels of any type. In IETF, it has gone through almost
  8 years of extensive and cautious study and discussions, and
  through many clashes and merges of ideas, it has finally evolved
  from a set of separate solutions for individual services (i.e.
  PWE3, Layer-3 VPN) to a unified multi-service and multi-transport
  architecture. Outside of IETF, it has also involved both hard
  development work on the vendor’s side, and bold actions of
  deployment on the service provider’s side. Many people have made
  a great amount of effort in this long course. There are also
  people who helped to promote and shape of the idea of egress
  protection, draw attention to this draft, and bring the draft to
  this stage. The current list of authors just reflects their effort
  and contribution. Without them, it would impossible for the draft
  to achieve its current status. Hence, we’d like request to keep
  the author list as it is. Thanks for your understanding."


  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?

    It has been a long process, and the initially the positions of
    the participants were far from each other. However, the
    discussion to reach consensus has been very contructive and at
    times slow, and we now have good wg support for the draft.

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?

  We know of both implementations and deployments, as informed
  by one major European vendor. We have in addition started an
  Implementation Poll and the write-up will be updated as soon
  as we get further information.

  The group that has been working on this has been fairly large
  and any reviewer that is worth mentioning is possibly included in
  the 15 people listed as authors and in the acknowledgement
  section. The MPLS-RT did as usual a good job and together with
  the authors nailed down a couple of issues.

Personnel

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

  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.

  This document has been discussed frequently for a long time it first
  appeared together with a "companion document" on ingress
  protection (published as RFC 8424), the shepherd has reviewed the
  document when it was first posted, before issuing the poll for
  working group adoption and working group last call.

(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.

  All the authors have stated on the working group mailing list that
  they unaware of any IPRs relating to this draft than those that
  has been disclosed.


(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 three IPR disclosures against this document. The working
  group has been made aware of the disclosures both when the
  document was adopted as a working document and at wglc.
  No concerns has been raised.

(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 is behind this document, it is viewed as a
  necessary extension to other MPLS protection mechanisms.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The document passes the 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 formal reviews required.

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

  Yes, the references are correctly split into normative and
  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?

  Of the three normative references one is on "Waiting for
  write-up"-state, one is in the RFC Editors queue and draft-
  ietf-spring-segment-routing has been published as RFC 8402.

  However, the document in the RFC Editors queue has a MIS-REF, this
  MIS-REF is shared but other documents and the SPRING and MPLS are
  working to resolve it.

(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.

  All the normative references have "Proposed Standard" as intended
  status, this should not be construed as downward reference, but it
  might take time to get the two remaining documents through to
  RFCs.

(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 publication of this document will not change the status of
  any other RFC.


(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).

  This document does not make any requests for IANA actions. Maybe
  note to the RFC Editor to remove the IANA section before
  publication should be added.

(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 IANA registries

(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 and automated checks necessary.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carsten Michel , Bruno Decraene , Jeyananth Jeganathan , Hannes Gredler , Yimin Shen , Huaimo Chen , Yuanlong Jiang

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carsten Michel , Bruno Decraene , Jeyananth Jeganathan , Hannes Gredler , Yimin Shen , Huaimo Chen , Yuanlong Jiang

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carsten Michel , Bruno Decraene , Jeyananth Jeganathan , Hannes Gredler , Yimin Shen , Huaimo Chen , Yuanlong Jiang