> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
> (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?
There is interest in ensuring that a particular problem is documented and that there may be multiple possible solutions to this problem. The WG concluded that there is not support for new Standards Track mechanisms at
this point in time. The procedures defined in the document are experimental in nature.
> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
> (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
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node
of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP).
> 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
This document moved from the MPLS WG to TEAS WG as part of the
routing WG changes. The document was adopted by the MPLS WG in
March 2014 and it has gone through several iterations since then.
There was a virtual interim meeting held in January 2016 to debate
the merits of the proposed solutions. There were also some issues
found by the Shepherd after the WG Last Call. An informal 1-week
Last Call was needed after these issues got addressed.
> 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?
The base MPLS RSVP protocol has been implemented. The extensions
defined in this document are compatible with earlier implementations.
While there have been no public statements on implementation, the
authors are from multiple vendors, and implementation is expected.
> Who is the Document Shepherd?
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> Who 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 reviewed the document as it has progressed
through the WG (first MPLS, then TEAS). The Shepherd believes this
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 took place.
> (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 specific 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, see thread
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Yes, an IPR disclosure has been filed that references 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?
Solid among those who are interested. "strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
> (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 extreme discontent seen after the document status was changed to “experimental.
> (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
The document passes ID nits.
> (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.
> (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 section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd. All protocol
extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate
reservations in IANA registries.
> (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.
> (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.