The MPLS WG requests that
Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.
Note: On the reuesst from the co-author this document was sent back
to the wg for "further work" very late in the approval process
(document was in IETF Last Call). The document has then been
updated and re-reviewed. Most of the earlier Shepherds Write-up
stands. Where changes has been made this clearly marked.
(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 a Proposed Standard.
This document specifies protocol extensions to LSP Ping to enable a
replying LSR to have the capability to relay Echo Response messages.
Since the LSP Ping protocol is extended this is a Standards Track
The document header says 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:
When the first version of RFC 4379 (a.k.a LSP Ping) were deployed
it was quickly understood that in some inter autonomous system
(AS) and inter-area deployments a LSR replying to an MPLS Echo
request LSR may not have the available route to the initiator. The Echo
Reply message sent to the initiator would be discarded resulting in
false negatives or complete failure of operation. This document describes
extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable LSRs to have the capability
to relay the Echo Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes.
This document updates RFC 4379.
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
Nothing out of the ordinary.
2015-07-09: Pulling a document back this late in the process is
certainly "out of the ordinary".
The updates to the draft were discussed at the working group meeting in
Dallas, and an MPLS-RT review were done at about the same time and the
wglc was done. The effect is that the document (now) has been very well
reviewed and has good support in the working.
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 know of implementations and deployments of this specification.
We also have indications that vendors have plans to implement.
, A poll for implementations has been sent to the working group, and
the Shepherd Write-Up will be updated as we receive more information.
2015-07-09: We started a new implementation poll during the wglc, the
result is about the same, but the "intention to implement" is slightly strong.
Also one of the implementers stated that they were in the process of updating
their implementation to match the specification as it stands after the update.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Loa Andersson is the document Shepherd
Deborah Brungard 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 document shepherd is convinced that the document is ready for
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, there has been a good debate on this draft, most of it taking place
when the individual the preceded the working group document was reviewed
by the MPLS review team.
(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 are 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.
All the authors has replied to the IPR poll, stating that they are not
aware of any other IPR than what is already disclosed
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There is one IPR disclosure against this document.
The terms quoted are such that it has not generated any discussion, we
have accepted such terms for along term.
(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 LSP Ping is a very commonly deployed protocol, the extensions
described/specified in this document has been identified as necessary
by several operators and implementers.
(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
Update to the Shepherds Writeup (for version -04) - marked Oct 2014.
The ID nits points out that the pre-5378 boiler plate is used, however
the shepherd does not think this is necessary, since both the original
co-authors of RFC 4379 have granted the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust.
2015-07-09: The discussion the pre-5378 boiler plate resulted in that the we
to not use the the boiler-plate. There are no ad verbatim quotes from RFC 4379.
The document itself is a merger of two individual drafts. The first is pre-5378,
but both authors has announced that they are willing to assign there rights to
the IETF trust. The other document is post-5378.
The statement above is not correct, it it true that we had the two original
co-authors agree to grant their BCP 78 rights to the IANA trust, however
after further investigation there are many more people that would need to
do the same. We have done an effort to reach all of them, but did not
succeed, so the pre-5378 boilet plate should be used in this document.
Oct 2014 / 2015-07-09:
The nits tool find one instance of non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
document.. As far as the shepherd understands this is generated by one of
the authors mail address.
No other nits found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal reviews necessary.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes - the references are correctly split up in normative and 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 (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.
There are no RFCs for which the status is changed, but RFC 4379 is
updated, this is discussed in the abstract and in the 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 5226).
The IANA section (and the info related to in the draft) is well and clearly
written, a new message type is requested.
The shepherd has reviewed the IANA section several times.
(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 such 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, etc.
Non such automated checks necessary.