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.
The MPLS working groups request that
Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS-TE
Is published as 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?
We request that the document is published as a proposed standard.
The document header says "Standards Track".
This document defines additions to the TE extensions for OSPF-TE and
ISIS-TE. Since it defines protocol element it needs to be on the standards
(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:
In the current MPLS-TE specifications i is possible to advertise
32 administrative groups (a.ka. "colors" or "link colors"). This is done
by using the using the Administrative Group sub-TLV in the Link TLV.
This is defined for OSPFv2 in RFC3630, for OSPFv3 in RFC5329 and
ISIS in RFC5305.
This document adds a sub-TLV to the IGP TE extensions, "Extended
Administrative Group". This sub-TLV provides for additional
administrative groups (link colors) beyond the current limit of 32.
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
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
No there is a general agreement in the working group that this
is needed, there has been comments during the discussion
in the in the working group and the working last call, but all them
contributing to improving 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?
Currently we are aware of one commercial implementation.
A mail requesting implementation information has been sent to
the wg mailing list and the Shepherd Write-up will be updated
if we receive further information.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD.
Loa Andersson i the document SHephed
(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 document shepherd has reviewed the document three times;
(1) when we prepared the poll to see if w had consensus to accept
it as working group document.
(2) while preparing the wglc and (3) while preparing the shepherd
The shepherd is convinced that the current version (-04) is ready for
(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
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
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.
The author has stated on the working group mailing list that he is
un-aware of any IPR that relates to this draft.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There are no IPR disclosures against his 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 is behind 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 such threas
(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
The document passes the 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?
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?
All the references are existing RFCs (including the informative
(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.
There are 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 un-necessary.
This document does not update or change the status of any
(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 document request that one sub-TLV are allocated for OSPF and
ISIS each. The IANA section is clear and easy to understand
(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.
(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 necessary.