Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-05.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?
Intended status: Informational indicated on the title page.
This RFC describes a Synonymous Flow Label framework for achieving flow identities within the MPLS architecture.
(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:
From the Abstract:
RFC 8372 describes the requirement for introducing flow identities
within the MPLS architecture. This document describes a method of
accomplishing this by using a technique called Synonymous Flow Labels
in which labels which mimic the behaviour of other labels provide the
identification service. These identifiers can be used to trigger
per-flow operations on the packet at the receiving label
Working Group Summary
The Working Group has reached consensus that this document is useful and should be published.
This document went through multiple reviews within the working group over the course of its development.
The techniques defined in this document are useful in several applications, such as the
measurement of the number of received packets in a flow for performance monitoring,
triggering IPFIX inspection, triggering other types of Deep Packet
Inspection, or identification of the packet source.
Review was done by MPLS review-team (MPLS-RT) and from several members of the WG.
All comments have been addressed, and there are currently no open issues.
Tarek Saad 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 reviewed the specification during WG last call and subsequently
checked all diffs. Comments on the mailing list were addressed in the last version.
There are other companion drafts to this document that are progressing in parallel.
The control plane draft <draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control> is optional and this technology could be deployed using SDN/controller based methods.
The document shepherd believes that this 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 reviews that were performed.
(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 still needs to be reviewed by the relevant directorates.
(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
Some discussions were triggered on the mailing list pertaining to the SFL Control message
exchange. These will be addressed/closed as part of draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-control.
The shepherd does not have any other concerns about this 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 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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Appropriate MPLS expert reviews and WG reviews have been done.
(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?
(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).
This draft makes no IANA requests.
(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.