Shepherd writeup
rfc7325-09

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.

   The MPLS Working Group request that 
        MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements
                     draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding-03

   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:

Technical Summary

  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 
  or introduction.

      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
      providers.


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 
  rough?

      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.

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?

      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.
       

Personnel

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

      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 IESG.

      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
      of interest.

(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 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
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.

      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
disclosures.

      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
thorough.

      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 
     existing 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).

      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.

Back