As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 16 October 2013.
The MPLS working group requests that:
LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path
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?
Type of RFC: Proposed Standard.
Why PS: The document specifies new protocol elements and procedures that
extend a standard track document. This is clearly a standard tracks 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:
This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint (HSMP) Label Switched
Path (LSP), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSP and also leaf to root along the
reverse path. That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP from
application/customer at the root node travels downstream to each leaf
node, exactly as if it is travelling downstream along a P2MP LSP to
each leaf node. Upstream traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any leaf
node travels upstream along the tree to the root, as if it is unicast
to the root. The communication among the leaf nodes are not allowed.
Working Group Summary
There were nothing remarkable in the WG process, all decision were
taken after converged discussions.
The working group chairs has sent an implementation poll to the
working group mailing list.
If/when we have news the Shepherd write-up will be updated.
For the time being we are aware of implementations and intentions to
The document has been reviewed in the normal wg process,
all comments has been fairly easily resolved.
The MPLS-RT reviewers have Mach Chen and Thomas Morin. The third
reviewer did not respond)
Shepherd: Loa Andersson
Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel
(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 has reviewed the document twice; once prior to
making it a working group document. And a second time during working
group last call.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, the Shepherd is comfortable with the reviews of this document.
(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 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 confirmed that they are un-aware of any other IPRs
other than the one that has been disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There are two IPR disclosures against this document (ID # 1777 and
ID # 2191)
. However, in reallity this is only one disclosure, since the owner of
the IPR, re-disclosed when we did the IPR poll, updating the earlier
(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.
(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.)
Not 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
The document passes the nits tool clean :)!
(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 required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes - they have been correctly split in normative and informative 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 normative references are too existing RFCs.
Note: Four informative references are to "work in progress", but to the best
of the knowledge of the Shepherd these IDs are also well under way
to become RFCs. All of the "work in progress" references are to IDs
progressed in other working groups than MPLS:
(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 existing RFC will be changed.
(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 is well and clearly written. The IANA registries are
However there is one glitch; the registries from which allocations are requested
contain several ranges
(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.
There are no new registries that require expert review specified in this document.
(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 such reviews.