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 Group request that
MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements
Is published as an Informational RFC with IETF consensus.
(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 an Informational. Informational
is correct since it discusses MPLS forwarding requirements and issues, it
gives guidelines for implementors based on operational experience, but it
does not specify any protocol.
Informational is the right type of RFC 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:
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
This document provides guidelines for implementers regarding MPLS
forwarding and a basis for evaluations of forwarding implementations.
Guidelines cover many aspects of MPLS forwarding. Topics are
highlighted where implementers might otherwise overlook practical
requirements which are unstated or under emphasized or are optional
for conformance to RFCs but are often considered mandatory by
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
This document has been discussed by the working group both on the
mailing list and at a long slot at the working meeting in Vancouver.
The working group is behind this document, there has been no mayor
controversies and very good discussions.
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?
The question about implementations is a bit tricky - there are no
implementations based on the document, as there were existing
implementations when the document was started up. Instead it is the
other way around, the document discusses implementation and
deployment experiences. All the scenarios discussed in the document
have been implemented and/or deployed.
The document is Informational and no MIB Doctor, Media type or other
other types of expert reviews have been necessary.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
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 Shepherd has reviewed this document several times, twice - prior
to the poll to make it a wg document and before the wglc, but the Shepherd
has also closely followed and contributed to the discussions on the document
on the mailing list.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns, all the expertise we need to review this document are
available in the working group, and the document have attracted a lot of
(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 has been 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 document was polled for IPRs prior to starting the poll for adopting
it as a working group document; at that time all the authors confirmed
that they were not aware of any IPR relating to this document. The list of
authors is the same now as it was when the IPR poll was issued.
As part of the preparation of the publication request a new IPR poll has
issued and if any changes as compared to the previous IPR is reported
the Shepherd write-up will be updted.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclousers as been 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?
The working group consensus is very solid, the document has been met
with strong interest but there are no outstanding issues.
(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
There is one outdated reference, draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results
has been published as RFC 7079.
This will be updated if a new ID is needed or taken care of by an
RFC Editors note.
(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 needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The references are correctly split in to Normative and Informative,
further there is an Appendix A explaining how this is done for an
document intended to be published as in Informational RFC.
The Appendix says:
"The References section is split into Normative and Informative
subsections. References that directly specify forwarding
encapsulations or behaviors are listed as normative. References
which describe signaling only, though normative with respect to
signaling, are listed as informative. They are informative with
respect to MPLS forwarding."
(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?
No such references to documents that are not ready to be advanced.
All the normative references are to 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.
The publication of this document will not 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).
There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.
(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 that will require 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 automated reviews (other than nits tool) necessary.