Shepherd writeup

The MPLS working group requests that 


Is published as a Proposed Standard.

(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,
  the title page says Standards Track.

  PS is the right type of RFC as the sole purpose of the document is 
  to update an existing Standards Track RFC, RFC 8287.

(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

   RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
   Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier
   (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC 8287 proposes 3 Target FEC 
   Stack Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure
   to handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how
   the length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include
   in the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in 
   interoperability issues. 

Working Group Summary

  There were no controversies progressing this document, the support
  in the working group is solid.

Document Quality

  In this case the question of existing implementations is a bit
  tricky, the document is a clarification to RFC 8287, of which there
  are implementations. The problem with the Segment ID Sub-TLV was 
  discovered when preparing inter-op test of RFC 8287.

  Document Shepherd: Loa ANdersson
  Responsible Area Director: Deborah Brungard

(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 reviewed this document when the Individual
  draft was first posted, when the working group adoption poll was 
  issued and at wglc.

(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 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
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 the authors and contributors has stated on the MPLS WG mailing 
  list that they are unaware of any undisclosed IPRs.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

  There are no IPRs disclosed against this document.

(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 support for the document is very strong.

(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 nits-tool clean, 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 reviewa required.

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

  This document has only normative regerences. It is the shepherds 
  opinion that no Informative references are required.

(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 regerences are to documents on the standrds track or to
  BCP (BCP 14).

(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.

  Publicaton of this document will update RFC 8287, this is mentioned
  in the Abstract and discussed 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).

  This document does not request any IANA actions.

(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 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 reviewa required.