Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-04.txt
(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?
Proposed Standard - Standards Track indicated on the title page.
The specification should be on the Standards Track since it specifies
new protocol, protocol procedures and and assigns new code points
from an IANA registry that require Standards Action.
(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:
Fast Reroute for RSVP-TE defines two different methods for local repair
to reroute LSP traffic over a backup tunnel. The document defines a
extension which enhances the facility backup and makes it independent
from the refesh-interval.
Working Group Summary
This is an update to RFC4090.
The document went through several reviews and updates based
on the feedback. There were some concerns on adding complexity
to RSVP-TE as as protocol which were addressed during the
dicussion on the WG Mailing List.
An implementation poll has been sent to the working group list and
the Shepherd Write-Up will be updated as we receive further
Nicolai Leymann 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 document shepherd has carefully reviewed the specification
during WG last call and subsequently checked all diffs. Comments
on the mailing list were addressed in the last version. The document
shepherd believes 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?
The shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breadth of the
(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
The document does not require a specific review.
(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
The shepherd does not have any concerns about the document.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Yes. There were no specific discussions or conclusions in the WG.
(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 solid consensus of all people who have reviewed and
contributed to the 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.)
(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
None errors found. Two unsused references and one outdated, these
nits should be addressed the next time the document is updated
e.g. after the RTG Dir review.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document does not define a data model nor does it allocate new
media types and URI types.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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 refrences are, with one exception, are to existing
RFCs. One normative refrence, draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-01,
is to a MPLS wg draft. This draft is ready to be progressed.
The draft is also outdated, and this will be addressed the next
time the document is updated e.g. after the RTG Dir review.
(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.
(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 status change of any other documents when this
document is published.
(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 considderation are straight forward and clearly written.
Only one code point is requested from an already existing registry.
(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 are being defined.
(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 formal reviews necessary.