(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?
The MPLS working group request that:
Applicability of LDP Label Advertisement Mode
is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.
This document updates the behavior of two standard tracks RFCs and
therefore needs to be on the standards track.
(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:
An LDP speaker negotiates the label advertisement mode with its LDP
peer at the time of session establishment. Although different
applications sharing the same LDP session may need different modes
of label distribution and advertisement, there is only one type of
label advertisement mode that is negotiated and used per LDP
session. This document clarifies the use and the applicability of
session's negotiated label advertisement mode, and categorizes LDP
applications into two broad categories of negotiated mode-bound and
mode-independent applications. The document updates RFC5036 and
RFC4447 to remove any ambiguity and conflict in the area of using
correct label advertisement mode for a given application.
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
There is a strong support for this document in the working group
and it has been has been well reviewed.
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 do not know any implementations, but a poll has been sent
to the working groups requesting information. The write-up
will be updated as soon as we have this information.
Update of the Shepherd Write-up 2014-01-29
The AD evaluation and the following discussion between the AD, shepherd,
document authors and the working group chairs resulted in changes to
the document of such a scope that it was agreed to do a short working
group last call to give the working group a chance to evalaute the changes.
This short working group last call ended 2014-01-29, The only comment
we had support that we progress the document with the changes introduced
during the AD evaluation.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is/will be 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 document shepherd have reviewed the document when the document
poll to become a working group document and again before
before working group last call.
The document shepherd believes it is ready for publication.
(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
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.
There are no IPR claims filed against this document.
Before the working group last call started the working group
chairs sent a mail to the working group and the authors, asking
any members of the working group whom were aware of IPRs to speak
up and requiring the authors either to indicate if they were
aware of IPRs or say that they were not.
Three out of four authors have said that they are not aware of
any IPR claims. The fourth author (Luca Martini) has told the
shepherd in a unidirectional mail that he is not aware of an IPR
claims on 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 claims 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 is behind this document. It has been well
discussed and reviewed.
(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 are 2 warnings on pre-RFC5378 work (since the document
updates RFC5036 and RFC4447), however thers is no direct
duplica of text from the documents so it is the shepherd opinion
that the disclaimer is not needed.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no such formal review criteria.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or 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 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.
No changes to existing RFCs with respect to status.
(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).
IANA is requested to add a column to an existing registry to track
how the codepoints are used (as described in this document). That
work has led to a long discussion with IANA during IETF last call and
that discussion revealed some bugs in the FCFS part of the registry
that have now been fixed and correlated back into this draft.
(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.
(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 formal language.