Shepherd writeup

   The MPLS working group request that 

                        Proxy MPLS Echo Request

        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 specifies protocol extensions and new protocol elements
   to be used with an standard tracks RFC [RFC 4379]. Consequently this
   document also 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:

Technical Summary

   There are two motivations for this document..
   First the scalability of automatic replication of MPLS Echo Request Messages
   as they are traversing proceed down the tree.  Second the ability to trace a 
   sub-LSP from leaf node to root node.

   Two design criteria are that large MP2MP LSPs exist and that the applications
   for P2MP/MP2MP tunnels require an OAM that is both rigorous and scalable.

   The normal tracing procedure - pinging repeatedly pinging from the
   root and the TTL by one after three pings, could produce a large
   amount of processing at midpoints and egresses, and produce large number  
   of replies back to the root.

   When an LSP is set up from the root, e.g. RSVP-TE, and the root consequently
   have knowledge of the entire tree, this could rather easily be mitigated by start
   sending pings from nodes closer to the affected area.

   When the tree is set up from the leafs, e.g. mLDP, the root may be aware of
   only the immediate downstream nodes. Leaf nodes may only be aware of the
   immediate upstream nodes. This document describes a method by which leafs
   can start the tracing process from the leaf working gradually towards the root.
   The leaf does so by sending an upstream node a message asking it to send an
   Echo Request to the leaf and the identity of the next upstream neighbor. This
   information is used to iteratively reach the root or the fualt is localized..

   This document defines protocol extensions to MPLS ping [RFC4379] to
   allow a third party to remotely cause an MPLS Echo Request message to
   be sent down a LSP or part of an LSP. 

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 

     The working group process has been smooth, we had comparatively few 
     comments (all of the supportive) during the wglc, but had a good discussion 
     during the MPLS-RT review (April 2013). No points of particular rough 
     consensus, the working group is behind this document.

Document Quality

  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 of this specification. An implementation
     poll has been sent to the working group mailing list and the 
     write-up will be updated as soon as we have further information.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

      Loa ANdersson is the Document Shepherd.
      Adrian Farrel 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 IESG.

       The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document when it first showed
       up as an individual draft (it did replace an earlier wg document- 
       draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping), when the document was prepared for MPLS-RT
       review and when preparing it for wglc.

      This document is ready for being published as an RFC on the standards

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

      No such concerns.

(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 reviews required or 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.

      All authors and contributors have confirmed that they are not aware of
      any IPRs other than those 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 three IPR disclosures against this document, disclosures
      ID # 778, ID # 2087 and ID # 2164.

(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?   

     There is a good consensus in the working group for 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.) 

      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

      The document passes through the nits toll clean.

      There are three comments, one on the use of pre-RFC5378 boiler
      plate; in this case it is correct to use that boiler plate.
      The other two comments are generated because a valid range is describe
      as "[1,255], causing the nits tool to ask if this is a reference, which it is

(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 required.

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

      Yes - the references are correctly split-

(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 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. 

      There are 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.

      Publication of this document will not change the status or any other

(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 consideration are well and clearly written. The section has
       been reviewed by the Document Shepherd prior to wglc and in preparing
       the document write-up.

(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 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 such reviews.