(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 MPLS working group request that:
Signaling RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs in an Inter-domain Environment
draft-ietf-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp-01
is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.
Since the document specifies new protocol elements, behavior,
new flags and Information Elements this meets the criteria to be
an RFC on the Standards track.
There are also at least one implementation intended for deployment.
(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
Traffic Engineered P2MP MPLS) and GMPLS TE LSPs are setup by
signaling procedures defined in RFC4875. RFC4875 leaves several
issues open when it comes to P2MP-TE LSP in inter-domain networks.
One such issue is the computation of a loosely routed inter-domain
P2MP-TE LSP when there is a requirement that they should not
re-merge, i.e. the paths should be "re-merge free". A second
issue is reoptimization of the inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree vs.
individual destinations. The ingress border node for a P2MP TE-LSP
that is loosely set is not aware of the of the scope of
reoptimization. This document defines the protocol extensions
needed to establish and reoptimize P2MP MPLS and GMPLS TE LSPs
that crosses more that one domain.
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
rough?
There is a strong support for this document in the working group
and it has been has been well reviewed.
However, this document have had a little bit unusual way up to the
request to publication.
The draft has been around since 2008, and have had 10 versions
before it was adopted as a working group document. The chairs has
on an off considered that the actvity around this document has
been a bit to low. The chairs has poked several time to find out
if there is interest to continue progressing the draft - the
result has been a steady trickle of more co-authors. And responses
from operators that there is a interest to have the issue
addressed in the document solved.
This was one of the first documents we took through an MPLS-RT
review, before adopting it as a working group document. One of the
points brought up was that we had not seen any operator support
for the draft; when this was popinted out it resulted in that two
operators joined as co-authors.
Since the document was early through the MPLS-RT review, and we
did not have the processes sorted not everything were on the
mailing list.
During the poll for adoption we had a huge for support of adopting
it as a working group document, version -01 took care of the
comments during the adoption poll; all the commenters has confirmed
that they are comfortable with the updates.
When we did the working group last call there were no comments.
The wg co-chairs were uncertain whether we should interpret this as
"lack of interest" or "support". The document shepherd did an
off-line poll a set of operators on how to interpret the
"no-responses". The feedback was that there is a clear operator
interest for the draft.
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?
We know one implementation and the implementation poll is
open on the working group mailing list. If there are more useful
Information the shepherd write-up will be updated.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is/will be 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 IESG.
The document shepherd have reviewed the document several times,
e.g. when the document was first published as an individual
document, every time we poked the authors about the low activity,
when it was polled to become a working group document, and just
before working group last call.
The document shepherd believes it is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
(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 such concerns!
The concerns the shepherd had on the interest in the document from
operators has been cleared.
(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.
The poll to see if we had consensus to adaopt it as working group
document said:
"There is one IPR claim against this document -
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1861/ .
All the co-authors has stated on the mailing list that they are
not aware of any other IPR claims than those already disclosed."
Tecnichally there are no IPR claims filed against this document.
However this is due to a glitch in the process tracking IPR
statements. When a document is accepted as a working group
document the reference to earlier IPR disclosures, at least for
the MPLS wg this means that the IPR disclosure is no longer is
tracked across the only step in the document process where no
other changes to the document, other than administrative, are
made.
The company making the IPR claim 1861, as so far not joined the
group of companies that re-issues IPR claims when the document is
accepted as a working group document.
The earlier IPR disclosure were also pointed out in the mail
starting the working group last call.
The authors have all stated that they are not aware of any other
than the ones disclosed in statement 1861 IPR claim.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
See the response to question 7.
(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?
The working group is behind this document. It has been well
discussed and reviewed.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
There is 1 miscellaneous warning (odd spacing).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no such formal review criteria.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(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?
Yes, all the references (normative and informative) are 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.
No changes to existing RFCs.
(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 consideration section is clear and well written.
(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 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 formal language.