As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
The MPLS WG requests that
Application-aware Targeted LDP
is published as an RFC on the Standards Track (PS)
(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 type of document should be Proposed Standard - the title page
Intended Status: Proposed Standard.
The document specifies protocol, protocl elements and procedurtes,
so it should be publsihed as a Proposed Standard.
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
Some tLDP applications e.g. remote loop-free alternate (LFA) and
BGP auto discovered pseudowires may establish a tLDP session to any
LSR in a network. The LSR that initializes such a session has
enough information to administratively control initiation of the
session. The targetted LSR normally does not have the information
necessary to control acceptance of the requested session. This
document defines a mechanism to advertise and negotiate Targeted
Applications Capability (TAC) during LDP session initialization.
The targetted LSR is made aware of targeted applications through
the TAC information. When this happens it can establish a limited
number of tLDP sessions for certain applications.
In addition, each targeted application is mapped to LDP Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) Elements to advertise only necessary LDP
FEC-label bindings over the session.
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
The wg process for this document has been fairly normal, and
the working agree that this is a necessary extension to LDP
for some applications. Discussion has been targetted on resolving
a small number of outstanding issues. The consensus in the working
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 are aware of several intentions to implement this secification.
An implementation poll has been sent to the working group and as
further information is received, the write-up will be updated.
No expert review outside the working group is necessary.
Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
Deborah Brungard 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 document shepherd has reviewd the document fully three times:
- when the -00 individual version was posted
- as part of adopting the document as a working group document
- as part of preparing the document for wglc
- a scoped review (including IANA section) was done as part of
preparing the publication request.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns, the document has been reviewed by the working
group (at wgap and wglc), it has been reviewed by the mpls-rt and
wg chair/shepherd. Each of the reviews have resulted on comments
that depending on the nature been addressed on (technical) or
off (editorial) the list
(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
No such conserns.
(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.
All the authors have stated on the working group list that they
are not aware of any IPRs other than those that has been disclosed
through the IETF process.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
The IETF IPR pages lists two IPRs disclosed against this dcoument,
in reality it is only IPR that has been updated as the dicument
changed file-name when accepted as a wg doc.
The MPLS WG makes the working group aware of existing IPRs at
working group adoption and working group last call. We ask if there
are any concerns about the IPR, i.e. silence is interpreted as
accepting the conditions in the IPR disclosure.
(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 very solid, this is something that is needed in MPLS networks
(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
The document passes 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.
No such reviews neweded.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, the references are correctly split into normative and
(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 the normative refrences are to existing standard tracks 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.
No downwad 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.
There will be no changes of status for any RFCs when this 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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the IANA section several times,
it is clear and well-written.
There is one small issue that I'm currently clearing with IANA.
(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 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.
No other automated reviewa than nits tool is necessary.