Shepherd writeup

(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?

 Requested status is "Informational" as indicated in the title page header.
The document describes both use cases and a standalone monitoring framework. The monitoring system re-uses existing IETF OAM protocols and leverage Segment Routing (Source Routing) to allow a single device to both sends and receives its own probing packets. As a consequence, there are no new interoperability considerations, Standard Track is not required and Informational status seems appropriate.

(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 describes features of a path monitoring system and
   related use cases.  Segment based routing enables a scalable and
   simple method to monitor data plane liveliness of the complete set of
   paths belonging to a single domain.  This MPLS monitoring system complements 
   the traditional MPLS ping and LSP path trace.

Working Group Summary:

This document is present in the WG since its BOF and had no controversy. 

Document Quality:

There is one prototype implementation which has been running in one research backbone. The resulting measurements have been compared to the results measured by three IP Performance Measurement Work Group (IPPM WG) standard conformant Measurement Agents and the results are equivalents. This is documented in draft-leipnitz-spring-pms-implementation-report-00.


Bruno Decraene is the Document Shepherd.
Alvaro Retana 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.

I've read all related emails on the SPRING mailing list.
I've reviewed -04 and sent comments on the authors and the mailing list.
Authors have addressed all those comments in -05 which resulted in significant editorial change in the document. I've reviewed -05 and sent additional comments.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Reviews in the WG have been quite limited. However the implementation report (draft-leipnitz-spring-pms-implementation-report-00) is of good quality and show that significant work has been done behind the scene.

(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. A review from the MPLS WG may provide additional feedback, but on the other hand this document is informational and only using the MPLS OAM protocols with no modification. Plus the implementation report is already a good reality check.

(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.

Readability could possibly be further improved but the RFC editor will have the chance to make suggestions.

(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 have replied to the IPR poll.

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

Two IPR have been filed:
Those IPR have been reminded during the WGLC and the WG did not comment on the IPR.

(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 represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

All nits found in -04 and -05 have been addressed in -06.
ID-nits still reports the lack of Form Feed. The issue has been found (use of the unpaginated option in XML2RFC). Authors will fix this in the next revision.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.


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


(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.


(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.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 IANA section. This is appropriate.

(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 registry.

(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.

N/A (no formal language)