The MPLS Working Group requests publication of
as a document on the standards track.
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
We request that the document is published as a Proposed Standard.
This is a protocol specification and make IANA allocations from Standards
actions registries, Proposed Standard is the correct type for this document.
(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:
The MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute are used to exercise specific paths of ECMP.
When the LSP is setup to use the Entropy Label as described in RFC 6790, the
ability for LSP Ping and Traceroute operation to discover and exercise ECMP
paths has been lost in scenarios which LSRs apply deviating load balance techniques.
One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL based load balancing while
other LSRs apply non-EL based load balancing. Another scenario is when EL
based LSP is stitched with another LSP which can be EL based or non-EL based.
This document extends the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms to
restore the ability of exercising specific paths of ECMP over LSP which make
use of the Entropy Label.
Working Group Summary
The working group process was smooth, but generated quite a bit of discussion, all
the discussion was focused on how to support the solution specified in the document.
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 implementations of this draft. An implementation poll
has been started and the shepherd write-up will be updated if and
when further information is received.
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 review by the shepherd has follow quite a normal flow. Reviewed once
when the document was first posted as an d individual draft, once before
mpls-rt review and adoption poll. and one more time prior to wglc, and to
verify that the updates from wglc has been correctly captured. The IANA
section has be reviewed a couple of times outside the review of the entire
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
(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
RFC 4379 and RFC 6424, are updated by this document this needs to be
captured e.g. by the current effort consolidated RFC 4379, RFC 6424 are being
merged into 4379bis. It is likely that because of the updates to RFC 4379 (as well
as other updates) we will chose not to request publication of rfc4379bis as an
(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! Each author has stated on the mpls wg mailing list that they are
unaware of any other IPR than those that thas been disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Yes, there are IPR disclosures made against this document
the working group has been aware of the IPR disclosures, and the shepherd
interpret the [lack of] responses such that the working group are comfortable
with publishing the 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 is very good consensus on this document.
(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.)
(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
No such nits.
However, the nits tool indicates that the pre-5378 disclaimer is missing.
The chepherd believes that all text content is post-5378, but the authors
should confirm that this is so.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal reviews necessary.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes the documents are correctly split.
(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 to existing 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.
There will be now changes in status existing RFCa.
(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).
No new registries are requested. The IANA section has been reviewed and
discussed frequently as the work ha proressed.
(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. All allocations are mad from already existing
(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.