Shepherd writeup

The MPLS Working Group requests that 

                             LSP Self-Ping

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 should be published as an Proposed Standard. The document 
defines new protocol so Proposed Standard is the right RFC type ,  This is 
clearly indicated on the title page.

(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

  This document fixes a problem relating to when in the establishment traffic
  may be sent on an LSP. 

   When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can
   receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed
   on all downstream nodes.  According to the RSVP-TE specification, the
   ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives
   a RESV message.  However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through
   the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream
   nodes, traffic can be lost.

   The document describes new procedures called LSP Self-ping.  When an 
   ingress LSR receives an  RESV message, it can invoke LSP Self-ping 
   procedures to ensure that forwarding state has been installed on all 
  downstream nodes.

   LSP Self-ping is an extremely light-weight mechanism.  It does not
   consume control plane resources on transit or egress LSRs.

   Even though there is a naming similarity between "MPLS Self Ping" and "MPLS
   LSP Ping" the protocols really has nothing in common. 
   The protocols diagnose a different set of problems, listen for input on different 
   UDP ports and behave differently. The only thing that they have in common is 
   that they are named similarly.

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 only thing worth mentioning here is that there were a lot of
  discussion taking place at the time when the draft was accepted as 
  a working group document. Especially there were discussion on 
  whether there is an overlap with BFD mechanisms in documents
  that are developed in in the BFD working group.
  It is understood that on a very high level such an overlap exists, but
  when we get down to details this draft is quite separate from what is
  is done in BFD.
  The MPLS working converged on the understanding that this draft
  is very specific for LSP establishment with RSVP-TE and fills a gap 
  that needs to be  filled. The BFD mechanisms are much more generic.

 The support for the draft in the wg is quite good, and the progress  through
  the working group has been easy, once the discussion around adopting the
  draft as a working document had converged.

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?

  Yes there is at least one implementation. We have started an
  implementation poll and will update the Write-Up once we have
  further information.
  The review of the document is quite good, it has been through 
  the mpls review team review and been discussed on the mailing
  No further specialist reviews are necessary. 

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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 been involved in the discussion about this
  document from the start, and reviewed the document several times.
  "Formal" reviews has been done before starting the MPLS-RT review and
  the working group adoption poll; and before starting the working group
  last call.

(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.

(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 issues or 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 stated on the mpls working group 
  mailing list that they are unaware of any IPRs that relates to this 

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

  There is IPR disclosure filed against this document,
  This was pointed out to the working group when we polled the draft
  to see if we had consensus to accept it as a working group document. The 
  disclosure did not generate any discussion in the working group.

(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 good.

(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 tool clean.

(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 required.

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

  Yes - the references has been correctly split into normative and 
  informative references.

(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 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.

  The publication of this document will not changed the status of  any
  other RFCs.

(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 section is very simple, the IANA has allocated UDP port 8503
  for this protocol.

(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, so no new experts needed.

(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 automated reviewa necessary.