The MPLS working group requests that
Requirements for MPLS-TP Shared Mesh Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-smp-requirements-05.txt
Is published as an Informational RFC with IETF consensus.
(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?
This is a requirement specification and should be published as an
Informational RFC with IETF consensus.
The document header says "Informational".
(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 presents the basic objectives of shared mesh protection
(SMP) that can be utilized without dependence on a control plane. The document
expands the requirements of RFC 5654 "Requirements for the Transport Profile
of MPLS" and RFC 6372 "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability
Framework".
The intention is that this document shall be used when defining mechanisms that
use SMP to implement protection for MPLS-TP data paths, in networks that
delegate executive action for resiliency to the data plane.
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
rough?
The history of MPLS-TP SMP includes starting out with a number
of solution drafts, some which were fairly quickly merged, but we failed
to merge all solutions into a single document.
The advice from the working group chairs at this point was to start with
a requirement specification. The current document is the result of that
process and includes authors from across the solutions drafts.
The document has been well discussed in the part of the MPLS WG that
is interested in MPLS-TP style protection.
The only "out of the ordinary" thing that has happened is that at one point
in time some of the authors told me that "the document is ready for wglc".
In preparation for the wglc the shepherd started an IPR poll saying:
"The authors of draft-ietf-mpls-smp-requirements have told the
working group chairs that the draft is ready to be working
group last called.
Before starting the the wglc we need to do an IPR poll."
Resulting in that one author and one contributor notified the shepherd that
they did not believe the document was ready to go!
Well - this was sorted out and all comments addressed.
Document Quality
This document is a requirement specification, and as such is not possible
to implement. It has been claimed in the discussion that led up to merging
solutions documents and requirement that some of the existing MPLS-TP
protection implementations fulfill the requirements in this draft.
The discussion on implementations will be revisited if and when we see
solutions addressing the requirements in this document being put forward.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
Adrian Farrel 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 believes this document is ready for publication
as an Informational RFC. Since the ITU-T SG15 is interested to use it as
a reference, it should go through IETF Last Call.
The document shepherd has reviewed this and related documents several
times since the discussion on MPLS-TP shared mesh protection started
in 2010. The Shepherd has also been participating in the efforts to merge
the solutions document and establish requirement document.
The Shepherd has the impression that there is a strong vendor and operator
interest in this area, and that this set of requirements represents a least
common denominator.
The Document Shepherd reviewed the document prior to the WG Adoption poll
and prior to wglc. When preparing the Shepherd Write-up for version -04, the
document shepherd decided that a langue review were needed and version
-05 is the result of this review performed by Matt Hartley.The language review
has very much improved the document.
(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 review 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 real concerns, the only thing is that the document need to go through
an full IETF Last Call in order to be possible for ITU-T to use it as a
reference.
(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 working group mailing
list that they are unaware of any IPR against 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.
No IPR disclosures filed 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?
In the part of the working group that is interested in MPLS-TP protection
the consensus is very strong, in the part of the working group more
interested IP/MPLS FRR and by-pass, the document is less well reviewed
but I'd say that based on the checks I've done no issues with progressing
the document have emerged.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
The nits tools points gives on warning, an unexpected double-space
on line 154. I think that this can be updated by the RFC Editor or if
new revisions are needed down the line.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
There are only normative 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 RFC or to stable ITU-T
Recommendations.
(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 documents for which the status will be changed.
(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).
There are no IANA allocations in this document.
(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 reviews performed.