Shepherd writeup

 (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: 

               LDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing

   is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.

   Since the document specifies new protocol behavior, new protocol
   elements, new sub-TLVs and Information elements this meets the 
   criteria to be an RFC on the Standards track.

   The implementations and intended implementations that we know of
   all intended for production networks.

(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

   Multi-Topology (MT) routing is supported in IP networks with the use
   of MT aware IGPs.  In order to provide MT routing within
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Distribution Protocol
   (LDP) networks new extensions are required.

   This document describes the LDP protocol extensions required to
   support MT routing in an MPLS environment.

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 

   There is a strong support for this document in the working group
   and it has been has been well reviewed.

   After IESG last call there were a number of questions and issues
   that resulted in a significant revision to the document. The 
   document was returned to the WG for an additional last call that
   showed support for the current revision of the document.
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 implementations and intended implementations, 
   further a poll has been sent to the working group mailing list 
   requesting information. 
   This poll has just resulted in that we know of two more implementations
    in progress.


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


(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.


(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 two 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 other 
   IPR claims than those diclosed.

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

   There are tw IPR claims filed against this document. IPR claims
   #1707 and #1875. 

(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 and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

   The is a warning that the document lack a disclaimer for 
   pre-RFC5378 work; however this has been discussed between the 
   shepherd, responsible AD and the authors.

   The document extends RFC4379, but does not reporduce any text from
   RFC4379. The disclaimer is not necessary and is thus not present.

   No other nits. 

(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?


(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 references (normative and informative )are to existing 

(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.

   The publication will extend RFC4379, this is captured and 
   discussed in all relevant places in the 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).

   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.