Shepherd writeup
rfc7439-04

   The MPLS Working Group request that 

           Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks
                    draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02

Is published as 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?

   We request that the document is published as an Informational RFC.
   This document is a "gap-analysis" it looks at what is missing if you want
   run MPLS in IPv6 only networks. The document does not not specify any
   protocol or define codepoints. This is pretty much a typical informational
   RFC.

(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

   This document reviews the MPLS protocol suite in the context of IPv6
   and identifies gaps that must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related
   protocols and applications to be used with IPv6-only networks.  This 
   document is not intended to highlight a particular vendor's implementation
  (or lack thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality, but
   rather to focus on gaps in the standards defining the MPLS suite.

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 good support in the working group for this draft, and it is needed
   to figure out the gaps that needs to be filled to run MPLS in a IPv6 only
   network; the draft point to several issues that needs to be addressed.

   There were comments during wglc that has been addressed.

   This document were one of the first documents that did go through the new
   Quality Assurance(QA)  that is started for Rtg Area documents. This review 
   was done in parallel with the wglc. The QA review concluded that this is a
   very useful document of good quality.   There were a set  of technical and 
   editorial comments that were addressed in the process to resolve the wglc
   comments.
   The QA also resulted in a comment that said that this document is a gap
   analysis and as such gives a description at one point in time, and ask if
   this should be published as a living document instead.

   This was discussed bu the working group and the working group chairs
   called consensus in a mail to the working group.

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg12752.html

   Saying:
   "The working group chairs find that the working group have consensus to 
     move ahead with the document (version -02) as it has been updated after
     the wglc and reviews.

     The value in having  the document publish by far outweigh not having it
     published. The benefits in moving the reference to an appendix (or
     removing them) is not comparable to have easily at hand when reading
     the document."

   That  said the wg chairs are agreeable to, as soon as the RFC is published
   start following the process of filling the MPLS/IPv6 gaps, we believe that this
   eventually cover more than the MPLS specification and that it is a job that 
   will be relevant for the entire rtg area.


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?

   This is an informational and a gap analysis document, no implementations
   are expected. On the other hand there are already activities and drafts
   looks to filling the gaps identified in the document. 

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

   Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
   Adrian Farrel 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 entire document two times
   once preparing the MPLS-RT review/adoption poll and once preparing the
   wglc.

   The document think this version of the document is ready to be published 
   as an Informational RFC.

   However, we have a small set of smaller comments that we are holding waiting
   for the AD evaluation, this does not change the opinion that the 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?  

   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
took place.

    No such reviews needed.

(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.

(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 of the authors has stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that they
   are unaware of any IPRs.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

   No IPR disclosures.

(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?   

(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.) 

   This document is well discussed on the mailing list and at wg meetings,
   both as an individual document, after it has been accepted as a wg 
   document and in the consensus process following the rtg area directorate
   review.

(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.

   Two of the referenced document has expired, no other nits reported. 

(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 necessary.

(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. 

   This document only have informative 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 are no status changes of other documents when this document
   is published.


(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).

   There are no IANA considerations.

(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 registries that will need Expert Review.

(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 formal reviews.
Back