Special-Purpose Label Terminology
draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-06

[Ballot comment]
I'm tempted to DISCUSS this, but for now I'll just ask it:

Can an IANA registry be a normative reference?  There are three here.

[Ballot comment]
A nice solid and well-written document; thanks.  Just nit-level quibbles
from me...

Section 3

What is the expansion of the "cSPL" term used in Figure 2?
It does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the prose.

Section 5

  The document describes the terminology to be used when describing and
  specifying the use of SPLs.  It does not effect the forwarding in the
  MPLS data plane, [...]

(nit) I think we want "affect" with an "a" (though the statement is
arguably more true with the "e" version; keep reading).
Also, my instinctive response to absolute statements like "does not
affect" is to seek even the smallest of counterexamples; we do seem to
(in Section 4) now mandate that processing XL followed by 7 at the top
of the stack be "drop the packet", and it was not fully clear to me
whether that was specifically mandated in the RFC 7274 procedures (or
even whether there is something useful to do with such a packet other
than "drop" in the first place).

Section 6

  IANA is requested to change the name of the registry that today is
  called "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" is changed to "Base
  Special- Purpose MPLS Label Values".

(nit) The "requested to change [...] is changed to" seems wonky, but
this has to get rewritten by the RFC Editor anyway once IANA has made
the change, so it may not be worth messing with now.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

The Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry located on the Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Values registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values/

will have the name of the registry changed from the existing:

Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values

to:

Base Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-01-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Nicolai Leymann , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, n.leymann@telekom.de
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Special Purpose Label terminology) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Special Purpose Label
terminology'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-01-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

  This document applies that terminology change to the relevant IANA
  registry and also clarifies the use of the Entropy Label Indicator
  (7) when immediately preceded by the Extension Label (15).

  This document updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology/

Note, this is a 2nd IETF Last Call as the document was updated and reflects
an update in Status from Informational to PS.

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.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?

PS.
The draft updates an IANA registry and clarifies processing.

(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 discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

This document applies that terminology change to the relevant IANA
registry and also clarifies the use of the Entropy Label Indicator
(7) when immediately preceded by the Extension Label (15).

This document updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032.

Working Group Summary

When undergoing IETF Last Call, several issues were identified. The
document was returned to the Working Group and it was determined
the status should be changed from Informational to PS. The Working Group
supported these clarifications and it repeated WG Last Call.

Document Quality

  The document went through several reviews and updates based
  on the feedback.


Personnel

  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 IESG.

  The document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document
  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
  reviews 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
took place.

  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
concerns here.

  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.

  Yes.

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

  No.

(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.)

  No.

(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
thorough.


(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?
 
  Yes.

(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 either to RFCs or to Label Value Assignments
  handled by the IANA.

(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.

  none.

(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.

This document updates RFC3032 and RFC7274.

(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 consideration are straight forward and clearly written.

(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 that require Expert Review.

(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.

Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.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?

Informational - Informational indicated on the title page.
The draft does not specify a new protocol or extension.

(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 discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update RFC7274 and RFC3032.

Document Quality

  The document went through several reviews and updates based
  on the feedback.


Personnel

  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 IESG.

  The document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document
  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
  reviews 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
took place.

  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
concerns here.

  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.

  Yes.

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

  No.

(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.)

  No.

(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
thorough.

  Section 2 should be fixed:

      * the values 0-15 has been reserved never to be allocated
      * the values 15-239 are available for allocation

Value 15 is used for "reserved" and "available for allocation" as well.
To be consistent with RFC7274 this should read as:

  * the values 0-15 have been reserved never to be allocated
  * the values 16-239 are available for allocation

Authors are aware of the necessary change and will update the draft.

(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?
 
  Yes.

(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 either to RFCs or to Label Value Assignments
  handled by the IANA.

(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.

  none.

(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 consideration are straight forward and clearly written.

(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.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03 . If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

The Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry located on the Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Values registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values/

will have the name of the registry changed from the existing:

Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values

to:

Base Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Michelle Cotton
Protocol Parameters Engagement Sr. Manager
IANA Services

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-08-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: mpls@ietf.org, Nicolai Leymann , mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, n.leymann@telekom.de
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Special Purpose Label terminology) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Special Purpose Label
terminology'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-08-26. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

  This document updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.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?

Informational - Informational indicated on the title page.
The draft does not specify a new protocol or extension.

(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 discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update RFC7274 and RFC3032.

Document Quality

  The document went through several reviews and updates based
  on the feedback.


Personnel

  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 IESG.

  The document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document
  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
  reviews 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
took place.

  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
concerns here.

  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.

  Yes.

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

  No.

(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.)

  No.

(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
thorough.

  Section 2 should be fixed:

      * the values 0-15 has been reserved never to be allocated
      * the values 15-239 are available for allocation

Value 15 is used for "reserved" and "available for allocation" as well.
To be consistent with RFC7274 this should read as:

  * the values 0-15 have been reserved never to be allocated
  * the values 16-239 are available for allocation

Authors are aware of the necessary change and will update the draft.

(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?
 
  Yes.

(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 either to RFCs or to Label Value Assignments
  handled by the IANA.

(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.

  none.

(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 consideration are straight forward and clearly written.

(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.

Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.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?

Informational - Informational indicated on the title page.
The draft does not specify a new protocol or extension.

(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 discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update RFC7274 and RFC3032.

Document Quality

  The document went through several reviews and updates based
  on the feedback.


Personnel

  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 IESG.

  The document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document
  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
  reviews 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
took place.

  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
concerns here.

  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.

  Yes.

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

  No.

(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.)

  No.

(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
thorough.

  Section 2 should be fixed:

      * the values 0-15 has been reserved never to be allocated
      * the values 15-239 are available for allocation

Value 15 is used for "reserved" and "available for allocation" as well.
To be consistent with RFC7274 this should read as:

  * the values 0-15 have been reserved never to be allocated
  * the values 16-239 are available for allocation

Authors are aware of the necessary change and will update the draft.

(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?
 
  Yes.

(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 either to RFCs or to Label Value Assignments
  handled by the IANA.

(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.

  none.

(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 consideration are straight forward and clearly written.

(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.