(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?
Proposed Standard.
(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
This specification describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a
given Label Switched Path (LSP) using a set of TLVs that are carried
by the LSP-Ping protocol. In particular it specifies the mechanisms
necessary to establish MPLS-TP OAM entities at the maintenance points
for monitoring and performing measurements on an LSP, as well as
defining information elements and procedures to configure proactive
MPLS-TP OAM functions running between LERs.
Working Group Summary
The WG process was smooth and without controversy. It was
necessary to repeat the working group last call in order to
ensure sufficient review and comment.
Document Quality
The document has been carefully reviewed and updated based on
review and last call comments. There is also some related
implementation work in progress.
Personnel
Ross Callon 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 document shepherd has read the document and sent comments
to the author on at least two occasions, and the document has gone
through two working group last calls with constructive comments
both times. The shepherd has verified that WGLC and his comments
have been addressed.
(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.
no 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.
Yes, all authors have confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
has been disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No IPR disclosures have been posted on the document (nor on
the individual draft that preceded it).
(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?
Those who are interested are solidly in support of this draft. There
does appear to be only a moderate amount of interest although
authors include experts from multiple major vendors.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
no threats, no hints of any discontent.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.
IDnits runs cleanly.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
not applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
yes.
(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 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.
All normative references are to standards track RFCs.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?
no.
(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 IANA considerations look complete and well done, and were
updated based on shepherd comments and subsequent discussions
among the authors.
(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.
none.
(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.
not applicable.