UDP Return Path for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-05

[Ballot comment]
And we're now redoing the OWAMP/TWAMP protocols ... This is kind of sad that there is no alignment. At the very minimum, in the terminology and concepts.
From RFC 5357

        +----------------+              +-------------------+
        | Session-Sender |<-TWAMP-Test-->| Session-Reflector |
        +----------------+              +-------------------+
          ^                                    ^
          |                                    |
          |                                    |
          |                                    |
          |  +----------------+<----------------+
          |  |    Server    |
          |  +----------------+
          |    ^
          |    |
          | TWAMP-Control
          |    |
          v    v
        +----------------+
        | Control-Client |
        +----------------+


Something I already mentioned to the RFC 6374 authors in the past when doing my OPS-DIR review. Sigh...

Anyway, please engage in the discussion regarding Eric Vyncke's OPS DIR review:
This short I-D is quite clear and easy to understand, security & manageability sections are correct. I found nothing in this framework document which could cause operational issues EXCEPT:

    as I am unsure of the usual PLDM procedures, what is the expected behavior when a PLDM message (incl a URO) is received by a PLDM node which does not support this object type? If it is well defined in PLDM, then there is no problem of course.
    Can a reply be fragmented? Should the reply contains the DF bit for IPv4? Probably worth mentioning what to do over fragmentation.
    What is the expected behavior when the URO contains an IPv6 address and the PLDM responder only has IPv4 address(es)?

Small nits:

    in introduction, I guess you meant "internally be forwarded" rather than "internally forwarded"
    Section 4.3, when selecting the source address, you may want to refer to RFC 6724

[Ballot comment]
I would be fine keeping the to-be-deleted text explaining alternatives that were not selected, especially if it was moved to an appendix. If anyone ever wonders about the alternatives, that would mean they didn't have to dig through e-mail archives to see what was considered and why the alternatives were rejected.

I'm not understanding why

  When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting the
  Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM query to "Out-of-band Response
  Requested", and the URO is present, the responder SHOULD send the
  response back to querier on the specified destination UDP port at the
  specified destination IP address contained in the URO.
 
is a SHOULD. Could you help me with that?

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 3 --

  Multiple UROs MAY be present in a MPLS-PLDM Query
  indicating that an identical responses SHOULD be sent to each
  address-port pair.

A small point: I think this is not meant to be instructions to the entity issuing the query, but to the entity responding.  Is that correct?  If so, the "MAY" is a statement of fact, not a normative requirement, so it should be "may" (or "might").

Also, the word "an" should be removed.

-- Sections 4.x --
Should the subsection titles of 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 say "MPLS-PLDM" instead of "MPLS-PM"?

[Ballot discuss]
I am in favour of publishing this document, but I have two major points that are not addressed in the document by now:

1) It is not clear for anybody what the expected size and sending frequency of such MPLS-PLDM over IP/UDP responses are. This will influence any measures an operator has to take in order to assure that there is no congestion caused by these messages. I can understand that this cannot be foreseen, but a few words considering this fact are excellent to have in the document.

2) This leads to my second point: the lack of any reference to RFC 5405 "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers" and the content out of this RFC that is applicable for this draft. There is no discussion about this at all. Please note well that this is BCP 145.

With regard to point 2): I can try to find some help from the transport area, in case you need help.

[Ballot discuss]
I am in favour of publishing this document, but I have two major points that are not addressed in the document by now:
1) It is not clear for anybody what the expected size and sending frequency of such MPLS-PLDM over IP/UDP responses are. This will influence any measures an operator has to take in order to assure that there is no congestion caused by these messages.
2) This leads to my second point: the lack of any reference to RFC 5405 "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers" and the content out of this RFC that is applicable for this draft. There is no discussion about this at all. Please note well that this is BCP 145.

With regard to point 2): I can try to find some help from the transport area, in case you need help.

[Ballot comment]

There were changes that seem to have been agreed as as
result of the secdir review. [1] Some of those could I
think nearly but not quite be discuss level, but as they
aren't and the discussion seems to have started, I'll
ballot no-objection but I do hope that the promised
changes get made, and I'd recommend cycling back to the
secdir reviewer (Sandy Murphy) as it wasn't clear to me
that the discussion reached closure just before the
holidays.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06296.html

- Could this be used as a way to nicely disguise a DoS?
I'm not sure if that's new to this or not though.

- Thanks for the applicability statement in the security
considerations. Makes me wonder about MPLS/UDP but sure.

- Saving a single bit to distinguish address families via
length seems unwise here, as everywhere.

[Ballot comment]
The introduction uses a MUST for the receiver to use the URO, but the later text uses SHOULD. 
Could you please clarify and make them the same?

[Ballot comment]
The text related to when the URO is used of not clear, and I think it could even result in technical incompatibility.  I don't think that this main concern raises to the level of a DISCUSS since it should be resolved easily (but it might be close).  In short, it is not completely clear when the URO should be considered in light of the rules in RFC6374; it is not completely clear if the rules in RFC6374 always take precedence.  Here are the specifics of my concern:

Section 4.2. (Receiving an MPLS PM Query Request) says that "in addition" to the processing in RFC6374, "with a URO present, then the responder SHOULD use that IP address and UDP port to send MPLS-PLDM response back to querier."  RFC6374 says that the "Source Address of a query message SHOULD be used as the destination for an out-of-band response unless some other out-of-band response mechanism has been configured, and unless a Return Address object is present, in which case the Return Address specifies the target of the response."  Several questions/observations:

* What does the phrase "in addition" mean in 4.2?  I'm interpreting it as adding rules to what RFC6374 says.  IOW, this document seems to be updating what RFC6374 says (or at least adding extra rules if the URO is present).  Is that the intent?

* As far as I can tell, there is no restriction for having both a Return Address object and the URO in the same query, right?  If so, and if the intent is *not* to update RFC6374, then it seems (from the text in RFC6374) that the URO would never be used (if a Return Address object is also present).

* Nitpicking a little at the meaning/interpretation of "configuration".  RFC6374 mentions (from above) "some other out-of-band response mechanism has been configured", but as you imply in (i.e as I interpret) Section 5. (Manageability Considerations) the mechanism in this document is signaling, not configuration:  "Nothing in this document precludes the use of a configured UDP/IP return path in a deployment in which configuration is preferred to signalling."  Yes, you could configure the system to prefer the URO signaling.. 

* The point with all this is that it is not clear what exactly is meant, and that the current text can result in more than one (defensible) interpretation.

* Small nit from the text quoted above in section 4.2: the response may in fact not go back to the querier.



I have a couple of other minor comments:

1. Section 3. (Solution Overview)  says (in the first sentence) that if the URO "is present in a MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder MUST use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to the querier".  Clearly related to the comments above, but also an incomplete statement: as explained in 4 and 4.1, the Control Code should also be set to "Out-of-band Response Requested".  Comments/questions:
    * [Nit] I don't think there's anything explicitly wrong with that first sentence, but it just doesn't sound right because of the conditional MUST ("unless configured otherwise").  You might want to consider something like this instead:  "This document specifies that if the  Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM query is set to "Out-of-band Response Requested", and a UDP Return Object (URO) is present in a MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder SHOULD use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to the querier."
    * What happens the URO is received in a query that doesn't have the correct Control Code?

2. Section 3.1. (UDP Return Object)
    * What happens if the URO contains an address not supported by the receiver?
    * "The URO MUST NOT appear in a response."  What should the receiver do if it does?  Should it ignore the URO or the whole datagram?

3. s/MPLS-PM (and MPLS PM)/MPLS-PLDM

[Ballot comment]
The text related to when the URO is used of not clear, and I think it could even result in technical incompatibility.  I don't think that this main concern raises to the level of a DISCUSS since it should be resolved easily (but it might be close).  In short, it is not completely clear when the URO should be considered in light of the rules in RFC6374; it is not completely clear if the rules in RFC6374 always take precedence.  Here are the specifics of my concern:

Section 4.2. (Receiving an MPLS PM Query Request) says that "in addition" to the processing in RFC6374, "with a URO present, then the responder SHOULD use that IP address and UDP port to send MPLS-PLDM response back to querier."  RFC6374 says that the "Source Address of a query message SHOULD be used as the destination for an out-of-band response unless some other out-of-band response mechanism has been configured, and unless a Return Address object is present, in which case the Return Address specifies the target of the response."  Several questions/observations:

* What does the phrase "in addition" mean in 4.2?  I'm interpreting it as adding rules to what RFC6374 says.  IOW, this document seems to be updating what RFC6374 says (or at least adding extra rules if the URO is present).  Is that the intent?
* As far as I can tell, there is no restriction for having both a Return Address object and the URO in the same query, right?  If so, and if the intent is *not* to update RFC6374, then it seems (from the text in RFC6374) that the URO would never be used (if a Return Address object is also present).
* Nitpicking a little at the meaning/interpretation of "configuration".  RFC6374 mentions (from above) "some other out-of-band response mechanism has been configured", but as you imply in (i.e as I interpret) Section 5. (Manageability Considerations) the mechanism in this document is signaling, not configuration:  "Nothing in this document precludes the use of a configured UDP/IP return path in a deployment in which configuration is preferred to signalling."  Yes, you could configure the system to prefer the URO signaling.. 
* The point with all this is that it is not clear what exactly is meant, and that the current text can result in more than one (defensible) interpretation.
* Small nit from the text quoted above in section 4.2: the response may in fact not go back to the querier.



I have a couple of other minor comments:

1. Section 3. (Solution Overview)  says (in the first sentence) that if the URO "is present in a MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder MUST use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to the querier".  Clearly related to the comments above, but also an incomplete statement: as explained in 4 and 4.1, the Control Code should also be set to "Out-of-band Response Requested".  Comments/questions:
    * [Nit] I don't think there's anything explicitly wrong with that first sentence, but it just doesn't sound right because of the conditional MUST ("unless configured otherwise").  You might want to consider something like this instead:  "This document specifies that if the  Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM query is set to "Out-of-band Response Requested", and a UDP Return Object (URO) is present in a MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder SHOULD use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to the querier."
    * What happens the URO is received in a query that doesn't have the correct Control Code?
2. Section 3.1. (UDP Return Object)
    * What happens if the URO contains an address not supported by the receiver?
    * "The URO MUST NOT appear in a response."  What should the receiver do if it does?  Should it ignore the URO or the whole datagram?
3. s/MPLS-PM (and MPLS PM)/MPLS-PLDM

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

First, in the MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object subregistry of the Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/

the value 131 has been subject to a temporary registration.

This temporary registration is changed to a permanent registration and the reference is changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The Description will also be changed from "Return UdP Port" to "UDP Return."

IANA understands that this action is the only ones that is required to be completed upon publication of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, loa@pi.nu
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RFC6374 UDP Return Path) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'RFC6374 UDP Return Path'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-12-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies the procedure to be used by the Packet Loss
  and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks protocol defined in RFC6374
  when sending and processing MPLS performance management out-of-band
  responses for delay and loss measurements over an IP/UDP return path.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

The MPLS wg request that the

                          RFC6374 UDP Return Path
            draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04

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 document header says "Standards Track".

-- Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC, since information elements and
  procedures for an existing protocol for MPLS delay and Loss measurements
  are specified (RFC 6374). It also assigns code points from a "Standards action"
  registry.

(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

-- The MPLS Packet Loss and Delay Measurement protocol is defined in RFC6374.
    RFC 6374 defines how to send and process MPLS performance management
  responses for Loss and Delay measurement.

  This document specifies the procedure to be used when an out of band
  UDP/IP return path is available,


Working Group Summary

-- There were nothing exceptional in the working group process other than
  the the WG Chairs had to ask twice during the wglc to get any response at
  all. I guess that this is one of those document that is of very strong interest
  for a small group within the working group, while the rest of the working
  understands that it need to be done, being happy that someone takes on the
  work.

Document Quality

-- We currently are aware of prototyping, as well as plans to any implement
    this specification, we have an ongoing implementation poll and the write-up
  will be updated if and when we get further news.
  There should be implementations since we made early allocations based
  on upcoming testing.

-- No special purpose reviews has been necessary.

-- The document is well reviewed in mpls-rt and at working adoption
    poll, even though the wglc gave nothing but supportive comments.

Personnel

-- Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
-- Deborah Brungrad 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.

-- The document shepherd has reviewed the document when it was first posted,
  when the document were prepared for working group adoption, and when the
  wglc were prepared. Nothing more than nits were found. A final partial review
  is done as the write-up is written.

-- The document shepherd is convinced that the document is ready for
  publication

(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 is pretty straightforward and the key
    people has reviewed it.

(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 needed.

(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 or issues.

(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 have stated on the working group mailing list that they
    are unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.

-- However the acknowledgement section says:
    "We acknowledge the contribution of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi,
    both with Cisco Systems. "
  The operative word is "contribution", my interpretation is that "contribution"
  translates to "supplying or heavily impacting" text in the document.
  We have earlier tried to include people acknowledged for "contributions"
  in the IPR poll, but have a strong push back. If the IESG (or responsible AD
  thinks it is appropriate I will re-issue the the IPR poll directed specifically
  to the two "contributors".
  Please note that we asked both them at working group adoption poll and
  got a response from one of them. The second "contributor" has to the best of
  my knowledge not responded to any of the IPR polls.
  Since no IPRs has been disclosed for this document, the opinion of the
  document shepherd is that we don't need more polls on IPRs for 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 or its predecessors.

(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 group that are really interested to progress this draft is only a
    part of the working group.  Within this group there is a solid
    consensus. The rest of the working group understand and agree that this
    specification is needed, but is not taking active part.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

-- There is a discussion whether we should use IP/UDP or UDP/IP, no other
    nits founds. We have converged on UDP/IP.

-- There is a [This] on line 293 that the nits tool interpret as a  missing
    reference, but it is not.

-- There is also a mis-alignment between "headings" and table content
    in the IANA section, this should be easily fixed before publishing.

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

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

-- Yes - the split is correctly done.

(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.

-- 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 will be changed when publishing
    this 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 only action required by IANA is to make an early allocation permanent.
    Register and sub-register are clearly pointed out.

(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 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 necessary.

The MPLS wg request that the

                          RFC6374 UDP Return Path
            draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04

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 document header says "Standards Track".

-- Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC, since information elements and
  procedures for an existing protocol for MPLS delay and Loss measurements
  are specified (RFC 6374). It also assigns code points from a "Standards action"
  registry.

(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

-- The MPLS Packet Loss and Delay Measurement protocol is defined in RFC6374.
    RFC 6374 defines how to send and process MPLS performance management
  responses for Loss and Delay measurement.

  This document specifies the procedure to be used when an out of band
  UDP/IP return path is available,


Working Group Summary

-- There were nothing exceptional in the working group process other than
  the the WG Chairs had to ask twice during the wglc to get any response at
  all. I guess that this is one of those document that is of very strong interest
  for a small group within the working group, while the rest of the working
  understands that it need to be done, being happy that someone takes on the
  work.

Document Quality

-- We currently are not aware of any implementations of this document,
    but an implementation poll has been started and the write-up will be
  updated if and when we get further news.
  There should be implementations since we made early allocations based
  on upcoming testing.

-- No special purpose reviews has been necessary.

-- The document is well reviewed in mpls-rt and at working adoption
    poll, even though the wglc gave nothing but supportive comments.

Personnel

-- Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
-- Deborah Brungrad 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.

-- The document shepherd has reviewed the document when it was first posted,
  when the document were prepared for working group adoption, and when the
  wglc were prepared. Nothing more than nits were found. A final partial review
  is done as the write-up is written.

-- The document shepherd is convinced that the document is ready for
  publication

(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 is pretty straightforward and the key
    people has reviewed it.

(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 needed.

(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 or issues.

(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 have stated on the working group mailing list that they
    are unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.

-- However the acknowledgement section says:
    "We acknowledge the contribution of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi,
    both with Cisco Systems. "
  The operative word is "contribution", my interpretation is that "contribution"
  translates to "supplying or heavily impacting" text in the document.
  We have earlier tried to include people acknowledged for "contributions"
  in the IPR poll, but have a strong push back. If the IESG (or responsible AD
  thinks it is appropriate I will re-issue the the IPR poll directed specifically
  to the two "contributors".
  Please note that we asked both them at working group adoption poll and
  got a response from one of them. The second "contributor" has to the best of
  my knowledge not responded to any of the IPR polls.
  Since no IPRs has been disclosed for this document, the opinion of the
  document shepherd is that we don't need more polls on IPRs for 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 or its predecessors.

(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 group that are really interested to progress this draft is only a
    part of the working group.  Within this group there is a solid
    consensus. The rest of the working group understand and agree that this
    specification is needed, but is not taking active part.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

-- There is a discussion whether we should use IP/UDP or UDP/IP, no other
    nits founds. We have converged on UDP/IP.

-- There is a [This] on line 293 that the nits tool interpret as a  missing
    reference, but it is not.

-- There is also a mis-alignment between "headings" and table content
    in the IANA section, this should be easily fixed before publishing.

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

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

-- Yes - the split is correctly done.

(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.

-- 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 will be changed when publishing
    this 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 only action required by IANA is to make an early allocation permanent.
    Register and sub-register are clearly pointed out.

(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 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 necessary.