Shepherd writeup

The MPLS Working Group request that 

            OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping

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?

   This document should be published an RFC on the Standards Track.
   The document header says Standard Track.

   This document makes necessary adjustments and extensions to 
   registries where the registration Procedures are Standards Action.

(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 document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
   Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3.
   This document also updates RFC8287 by clarifying that the existing
   "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate OSPFv2, and by
   defining the behavior when the Segment ID SUb-TLV indicates the use
   of IPv6.

Working Group Summary:

   The progress of this document was smooth and it is generally 
   understood within the working group that the document is needed. 

Document Quality:

   There are existing implementations of the protocol, using the early 


   Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.

   Martin Vigoureux is the Responsible Area Director
   Note: Deborah Brungard was the responsible AD at the time of the 
   early allocation of code points for this document.

(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/Working Group Chair was part of the 
   discussion that lead to the decision to write this document
   and the Shepherd has closely followed every step until the 
   document is now ready for IESG review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or 
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

   No such concerns! The document has been reviewed by all the key

(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 review 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 authors (no contributors listed) have all confirmed that they
   are unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this 
document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding
the IPR disclosures. 

   There are no IPR disclosures 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 support this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summaries 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

   No such threats.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the 
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; 
this check needs to be thorough. 

   The document passes the Nits-tool clean, no other nits identified.

   Nits tool point to a reference to the LSP Ping IANA register and 
   ask if that is a down ref (see below).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review 
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI 
type reviews. 

   No formal reviews necessary.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative? 

   There are no informative references. But this is a correct 
   treatment of the references.

(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 to existing standard track RFCs and
   to BCP 14.

(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 down-ref's!
   Nits tool point to a reference to the LSP Ping IANA register and 
   ask if that is a non IETF document and a down-ref.
   The document is of the opinion that that this can't be construed
   as a down-ref.

(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. 

   This document updates RFC 8287, this is listed in the header and
   discussed in the Abstract and Introduction.

(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 8126). 

   This document is about codepoints and interpretation of
   codepoints, so reviewing the document is implicitly reviewing
   the IANA section.

   However, there is also a well-written IANA section. the Shepherd
   has been involved in and agreed to any changes in the IANA section.

   The IANA registries from which the new codepoints are allocated 
   (early allocation) are clearly identified.

(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 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, 
YANG modules, etc.

   No such reviews performed.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been 
checked with any of the recommended validation tools 
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting 
errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing 
them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network
 Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

   This is not a YANG model