Shepherd writeup
rfc8150-12

The MPLS Working Group request that 

              MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection MIB
              draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-10

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?

  We request that the document is published as a Proposed Standard.
  The document is a MIB module. MIB modules are published on the 
  standrad track. The document header says "Standards Track".

(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 memo defines objects for managing MPLS-Transport Profile 
   (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection.

   This MIB module should be used for configuring and managing the MPLS-
   TP linear protection for MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs).

   At the time of writingthis Shepherd Write-up, Simple Network
   Management Protocol (SNMP)
   SET is no longer recommended as a way to configure MPLS networks
   as was described in RFC 3812 [RFC3812].  Since the MIB module
   specified in this document is intended to work in parallel with 
   the MIB module for MPLS specified in [RFC3812], certain objects 
   defined here are specified with MAX-ACCESS of read-write or 
   read-create so that specifications of the base tables in [RFC3812]
   and the new MIB module in this document are consistent. The MIB 
   module has a read-only conformance statement so that vendors and/or 
   network operators can choose to implement/operate the MIB module 
   as read-only.

   Although the example described in Section 7 specify means to 
   configure OAM identifiers for MPLS-TP tunnels, this should be seen
   as indicating how the MIB values would be returned in the 
   specified circumstances having been configured by alternative 
   means.

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 interest in MPLS-TP is slightly waning, however there is a
    rather strong group within the working group working on the last
    MPLS.TP documents. The MPLS WG is also committed to complete the
    MPLS-TP project. This document has been greatly improved in the
    reviews during the working group process

    There has been a solid review of this document, some members of
    the working group has contributed, but the heavy load has been
    carried by MIB doctors.

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?

  We know of a handful of implementations (or intent to implement).    

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

    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 changed a couple of times over the
    lifetime of he document.
    The current shepherd has only reviewed the document when it was 
    adopted as a wg document (though in the role as wg chair, not as
    document shepherd) and as a shepherd when the document were 
    preparedfor wglc. The shepherd has also followed the resolution 
    of the wglc and MIB Doctor comments.

(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 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.

    Yes, all the authors/contrbutors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing
    list that they are unaware of any IPRs that relate to this 
    document.
    There are no IPRs disclosed 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.

    There are no IPRs disclosed aginst 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?

    It is the opinion of the shepherd that the wg consensus is 
    strong. The working group agreed on which documents that need
    to be produced for MPLS-TP, the critical MIB modules were 
    included as part of this agreement.
    It is always an issue with MIB modules that almost everyone in 
    the working group that is really intersted also appears as 
    authors or contributors.
    For this document we have a few names on the author-list that has
    not written MPLS MIB modules earlier.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

    The doument passes 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.

    This document has been extensively reviewed by the MIB Doctors,
    according to the normal wg document process.

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

    Yes, all reference are correctly identified as Normative and 
    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 references are to published standard track 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. 

    See Question 14, there are no down-ref's.

(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 change the status of
    any other document.


(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 only action that IANA is asked to take is to assign a OID for
    the MIB Module.

(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.

    Nor 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.

    The MIB Doctor has run the MIB Module through the MIB compilers
   (smilint and smicng) as required.

    No other automated checks are required.
Back