Shepherd writeup
rfc8012-05

The MPLS Working Group requests publication of
draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping 
as a  document on the standards track.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

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.
   consensus 

(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 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.

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 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.
Personnel

 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.

   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
   document.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

   No.

(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.

(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.


   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 
   Internet Standard.

(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
disclosures.

   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.) 

   No.

(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.

   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 
   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 needed.
Back