(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:
Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability-06
is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.
Since the document specifies new protocol elements, new TLVs and
Information lements this meets the criteria to be an RFC on the
Standards track.
(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
LDP have mechnisms to negotiate LDP capability - RFC 5561 -
currently the mechanisms does not allow negotiation for all LDP
applications, e.g. IP Label Switching and L2VPN P2P PW signaling
are not covered. When an LDP session is started this might lead
to that an LDP peer may announce LSP capabilities other than for
what the LDP session were set up. This document specifies a
solution by which an LDP speaker announces to its peer its
disinterest in such non-negotiated applications. This, in turn,
disables the advertisement of corresponding application state, which
would have otherwise be advertised by default, over the established
LDP 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
rough?
There is a strong support for this document in the working group
and it has been has been well reviewed.
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 of ongoing/intended implementations, further a poll has
been sent to the working groups requesting information about
implementations. The write-up will be updated as soon as we
have this information.
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, 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!
(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.
There are no IPR claims filed against this document.
Before the working group last call started the working group
chairs sent a mail to the working group and the authors, asking
any members of the working group whom were aware of IPRs to speak
up and requiring the authors either to indicate if they were
aware of IPRs or say that they were not.
The authors have all said that they are not aware of any IPR
claims.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There are no IPR claims filed 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?
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.
This draft comes out clean when checked by the id-nits tool.
(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?
All normative references are to existing RFCs.
There are two informative references that are still IDs, but these
are also well underway to publication request.
(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.