(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:
Applicability of MPLS-TP Linear Protection for Ring Topologies
is published as an Informational RFC.
This documentdoes not specify a protocol but describes how to
use the MPLS-TP linear protection as specified in RFC6 378 for
ring topologies, 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:
This document presents an applicability of linear protection
mechanisms for Multi-Protocol Label Switching Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP) in ring topologies. Protection on rings offers a number of
opportunities for optimization as the protection choices are
limited (all traffic traveling one way around a ring can only be
switched to travel the other way on the ring), but also suffers from
some complications caused by the limitations of the topology.
Requirements for MPLS-TP protection and specifically for protection
in ring topologies are discussed in "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile" (RFC 5654) and "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
Survivability Framework" (RFC 6372). This document shows how MPLS-TP
linear protection as defined in RFC 6378 can be applied to ring
topologies, discusses how most of the requirements are met, and
describes scenarios in which the function provided by applying linear
protection in a ring topology falls short of some of the
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
There is a strong support for this document in the working group
and it has been has been well reviewed.
There are differences on how "ring protection" is viewed in
the working group, but it does not concern this document; the
opinion differs if we need to define ring protection that is
not based on RFC 6378 linear protection.
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 describes how the technologies
defined in earlier RFCs can be applied to ring topologies.
The document has been reviewed needed, the working
group last call was brought to the attention of SG15 in
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.
Adrian Farrel 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 document shepherd have reviewed the document several times,
e.g. when we had several ring-protection individual proposals
(the shepherd was instrumental in merging these proposals), when
it was polled to become a wg document and at the wg last
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?
(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
(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
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 is two IPR claims 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.
The authors have all said that they are not aware of any other
IPR claims than those already disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There is two IPR claims filed against this document. In one case
the IPR claim comes from a company that have authors that has
participated in developing the document.
The IPR claim was brought to the working groups attention during
the working group last call, but no one spoke up and said that
this IPR would be a problem.
(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.
As said earlier there are a part of the working group that
believes that further documentation for ring topologies is
required. However, this does not mean that we have any threats
to appeal or any extreme discontent on this document.
(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
There are some warnings from the nits tool against version -03
of the document. To the best of the understanding of the shepherd
there is no reason to address these warnings.
(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, there is a split between normative and informative
references. There is one normative reference, all other references
are informative references, all of references are to existing
RFC's or ITU-T Recommendations.
(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?
There is one normative references, to RFC6378.
(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.