Shepherd writeup

The MPLS working group requests that 

               Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network

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?

   The intended type of RFC is Proposed Standard. The document specifies 
   protocol and protocol information elements, so Proposed Standard is 
   the proper type of RFC. The documet 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:

Technical Summary

   Thie document specifies a G-ACh based Residence Time Measurement 
   capability and how it can be used by time synchronization 
   protocols being transported over an MPLS domain.
   The Associated Channel was first specified in MPLS PW context, was
   generalized during the MPLS-TP project and is now frequently used 
   across the entire MPLS technology.

   "Residence time" is the variable part of propagation delay when
   timing and synchronization messages are propagated along a path in
   the network. Knowing what this part of the delay is for each
   message makes it possible to more accurately determine the delay
   value to be included in e.g. a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) event

Working Group Summary

  The working group processing of this group was fairly smooth, 
  though some experts in the area have ben chiming in and very much
  improved the document.

  There has been a high degree of collaboration between members of 
  the MPLS, TICTOC and BMWG Working Groups. There are currently 6 co-
  authors listed on the front page. We this was discussed (chairs, 
  shepherd, AD and authors), we said that considering the level of 
  contribution from different sources we agreed that it is motivated
  to have all 6 authors listed on the front page.

Document Quality

  There has been no formal expert review.

  We are aware of intentions to implement this specification, an
  Implementation Poll has been started and the Write-Up will be as
  new information is available.


  Loa Andersson 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. 

  In the MPLS working group the shepherd is appointed well before the
  working group adoption poll. The shepherd makes sure that the 
  document is ready for the adoption poll (including detailed review
  and IPR poll). The shepherd follows the document closely and review
  the when necessary, particular interest is given to the IANA section
  and IPR disclosures.
  This particular was reviewed by the shepherd before the WG adoption
  poll, during the WG process and prior to the WGLC, the shepherd has
  also closely followed the updates to the document that were caused 
  by these reviews.

(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 necessary, though we made sure that 
  synchronization experts has reviewed the document.

(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.

  Each author has stated prior the WG adoption poll and prior to the 
  WGLC that all the IPRs they are are aware of has been disclosed 
  according to the IETF disclosure process.

(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 disclosed against this document, the working were 
  made aware of this disclosure both in the working group pol and
  in the WGLC. There were no discussion on the IPR, this has been 
  interpreted as that the WG are ready to move ahead with the 
  document regardless of the IPR disclosure.

(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 as a whole understand that this is something we need
  to specify to improve monitoring. The work has been done within a
  small group of people that form an overlap between the MPLS and 

(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

  We have one outdated informative refrence, but that document is 
  currently active, and we should capture the correct version when
  the RFC is published.

  On the possible downward references see question 13.

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

  No such reviews necessary.

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

  Yes the references has been 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 normative references are to existing RFCs, with the 
  exception of the IEEE document mentioned in question 15.

(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.

  The nits tool point at:
           "Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol
            for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
            IEEE Standard 1588, July 2008.

  as a possible down-ref (non-RFC), the shepherd does not think this
  a down-ref.

After a short discussion between the shepherd and and one of ther authors
we decided to put in the following clarification:

    Thereferenced document is a standard (they do have lower grade standards 
    like we do) of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Society.

   FWIW TICTOC has an agreement that members of the WG can have access to
   the text for use in conjunction with their work in the IETF.

(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 will be no changes of status of any other document.

(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 document has an extensive (eight sub-section, with several 
  IANA actions each) and well written IANA section

  The shepherd have reviewed the IANA section and the IANA work 
  several times. The shepherd is convinced that all the criteria
  listed in question 17 are met and clearly stated.

  The document creates two new registries, and allocate code points
  from 6 (sub.)registries. All assignable code points are assign by
  the FCFS method.

(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 requires Expert Review.

(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 formal review necessary.