The MPLS WG requests that
MPLS Flow Identification Considerations
is published as an Informational RFC.
(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 document is intended to become an Informational RFC, it is the
first in a group of documents that discusses the need of and will
specify standards for MPLS flows.
It correct to publsih this document as an Informational, since it
does not specifies new standard, but discusses why such MPLS flow
identification standards are needed and what needs to be
considered when such standards will be developed.
(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 discusses the aspects that must be considered when
developing a solution for MPLS flow identification. Flow
identification is needed for e.g. in-band performance monitoring
of user data packets.
Flows need to be identified in MPLS networks to detect and
measure e.g. packet loss and packet delay.
A method of loss and delay measurement in MPLS networks were
defined in RFC 6374. The packet loss measurment defined in
RFC 6374 depends on OAM packets interjected into the flows for
which packet loss is measured (active measurement).
The packet performance measurement system needs to be extended to
deal with flows of different granularities and to address multi-
point cases in which multiple ingress LSRs send packets to one or
Flow identification technique need to invisible to the end user
and that the flow identification does not cause side effects in the
When there are multiple traffic sources, such as in MP2P and MP2MP
network environments the sink need to distinguish between packets
from the various sources, a multi-point to multi-point measurement
model needs to be developed.
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 MPLS working group have a long discussion on the need and
method of source and flow identification. We have converged on the
considerations captured in this framework document and on the
method described in a set of forthcoming specifications.
The working group is solidly behind this document.
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 is a framework document, and as such it does not directly
specify an implementable protocol, there are a set of documents
in the pipe that will do that. Several vendors have indicated
that they will implement the upcoming solution.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Loa Andersson is the Document SHephered.
Deborah Brungard is 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 has reviewed the docuyment several times,
e.g. when if first was posted, when preparing working group
adoption and preparing working group last call. The shepherd has
also been active in the soruce and flow identification discussion
and reviewed several of the early documents.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns.
(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 reviews necessary.
(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.
The document has been through an early review by the RTG-DIR,
this review found some nits that has been addressed.
(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 and contributors has confirmed that they are unaware
of any IPRs that has not been disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There are no IPR disclosure against 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?
Flow and source identfication are necessary components to meet
the current requirements on packet loss and delay. The working
group solidly support this document.
(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 the 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 formal reviews required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, but there is only one normative reference - RFC 2119, all
other references are 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?
All normative references (1 reference) is to published 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 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.
There will be no status change of any existing RFC due to the
publication of 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).
This document does not require any actions from the 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 such reviews required.