(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 MPLS working group request that:
Per-Interface MIP Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-06
is published as an Informational RFC.
This document does not specify a protocol but describes
requirements for Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points
(MIPs) and how they may be situated within network nodes at the
incoming and outgoing interfaces. The document is thus intended
to be published as an informational RFC.
(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
The Framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes how Maintenance
Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) may be situated within
network nodes at the incoming and outgoing interfaces.
This document elaborates on important considerations for internal MIP
addressing. More precisely it describes important restrictions for
any mechanism that specifies a way of forming OAM messages so that
they can be targeted at MIPs on incoming or MIPs on outgoing
interfaces and forwarded correctly through the forwarding engine.
Furthermore, the document includes considerations for node
implementations where there is no distinction between the incoming
and outgoing MIP.
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?
This document has support in the working group and has been well
reviewed.
There has been a comparatively long discussion that in the end
converged on a widely accepted definition of pre-interface MIPs
and MEPs.
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?
This an informational document, it discusses deployment of per-
interface MIPs and MEPs.
The document have had the review that is needed.
No need for third party expert reviews.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.
Stewart Bryant is/will be 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 have reviewed the document several times,
e.g. when it was polled to become a wg document and at the two wg
last calls, at at least one time between these two wg wide
reviews.
After the first wg last call we found that the nature of the
comments were such that the authors were requested to do a major
respin of the document. The updated version of the document did
go through a second working group last call. In the discussion
after that working group last call the working group converged on
a resolution of all comments.
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?
No.
(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.
(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.
There are no IPRs filed against this document.
Before the working group last call started the working group chairs
sent a mail to the working group and the authors, asking any members
of the working group whom were aware of IPRs to speak up and requiring the
authors either to indicate if they were aware of IPRs or say that they
were not.
(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 IPR filed for 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?
The working group is behind this document. It has been well discussed
and reviewed as part of the MPLS-TP discussion.
(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.
No nits :) !
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no such formal review criteria.
(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?
No, all normative references except one are to existing RFCs, however
thereferenced draft is in the RFC Editors queue.
(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.
No changes to existing 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).
No request for IANA allocations.
(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 request for IANA allocations.
(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 language.