Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation
Document History
----------------
> Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
> concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did
> it reach broad agreement?
This document has broad support.
> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
> decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
There has been some discussion about some points. Of particular
interest is the document's relationship to MPLS Network Actions
(MNA), since there is some functional overlap and this document
already has an installed base. The consensus of the WG is to publish
this document, but to move it to Historical after an MNA based
alternative is published.
> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarize 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 one has proposed an appeal or has expressed any lasting discontent
with the document.
> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
> contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
> implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
> implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself
> (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
Implementation information is discussed in Section 8 of the document.
Additional Reviews
------------------
> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
> in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
> therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
> yes, describe which reviews took place.
No, this document would not cause interactions with other working
groups. The document was reviewed by the Routing Directorate and all
concerns raised have been addressed.
> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
> type reviews.
Not applicable.
> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
> module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for
> syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors
> or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this
> time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management
> Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342?
Not applicable.
> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections
> of the final version of the document written in a formal language,
> such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Not applicable.
Document Shepherd Checks
------------------------
> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
> that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
> designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
In the eyes of this shepherd, the document is a needed description of
an existing, deployed feature that is likely to be supplanted by
better mechanisms in the near future. Publication is warranted due to
the installed base. The document is reasonably clearly written,
reasonably complete, reasonably designed, and reasonably ready to be
handed off to the responsible Area Director. No document is perfect.
> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been
> identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen
> in subsequent reviews?
The document has been reviewed with respect to the Routing Area AD
Nits issues list. No open issues remain.
> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
> (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper
> type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
> this intent?
This is being submitted as a Proposed Standard. This is an extension
to MPLS that has been implemented and deployed. To allocate an
extended special purpose label, it needs to progress by standards
action. If and when a comparable MNA based proposal is ratified by the
WG, it has been agreed that this document will transition to
Historical. This agreement is recorded in the document text.
> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
> intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described
> in BCP 79? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
> disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
> relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages
> when applicable.
Immediately before WGLC, an IPR poll was conducted of all authors and
contributors. This resulted in the submission of two IPR claims after
which all parties responded. The organizations that submitted the
claims were very late in doing so and have published apologies to the
WG. To the best of my knowledge, all disclosures have been filed.
IPR poll thread, including responses and apologies:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Thu0tA24sbmC1OyX22gqscbmDYQ/
> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to
> be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the
> front page is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.
> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
> idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
None observed.
> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See
> the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References.
Everything seems appropriate.
> List any normative references that are not freely available to
> anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such
> normative references?
Not applicable, all normative references are RFCs.
> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list
> them.
Not applicable, all normative references are Proposed Standards.
> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
> state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?
Not applicable, all normative references are RFCs.
> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
> RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this
> and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and
> discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the
> part of the document where the relationship of this document to
> these other RFCs is discussed.
No, this is a pure extension of existing mechanisms and does not
update or obsolete any other document.
> 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 aspects of the document requiring
> IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in
> IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have
> been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA
> registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and
> a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
The authors have addressed all comments on the IANA considerations.
> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
> clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
> appropriate.
Not applicable. The document does not request any new registries.