Shepherd writeup
rfc8611-08

The MPLS wg requests that 

   draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-04

is published as an RFC on the Standards Track

(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 a Proposed Standard.
   Proposed Standard is the correct type of RFC since the document
   specifies new protocol and protocol element, and creates IANA 
   registries that allocate code-points through standards action, 
   the document also allocates code-points from IANA registries that 
   requires Standards Action allocation.
   
   The document header says: Standard Tracks.

(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 defines an extension to the MPLS Label Switched Path
   (LSP) Ping and Traceroute as specified in RFC 8029.  The extension
   allows the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover and exercise
   specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) over 
   Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces.

   MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute tools were not designed to discover
   and exercise specific paths of L2 ECMP.  The result is certain 
   limitations when LSP Ping is used with LAG.

   MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute are not able to detect the presence of and
   localise certain LSP failures on all member links of the LAG.  

   Creation of this document was motivated by issues encountered 
   in live networks.

Working Group Summary

  The only thing is that as the document was going through a first
  working group last call, most of the original authors had changed
  affiliation, and the document progress became slow. At one point 
  in time the wg chairs thought the document would be abandonned, but
  when we solicitited the interest for progressing the document we 
  found quite a bit of interest.
  The working group chairs then appointed an editor and the progress 
  has been smooth after that. However, as a result the document has now 
  six authors. The authors, wg chairs and the working group are 
  comfortable with 6 authors.

  There were two working group last calls. The second one was issued
  because there was a long time between the first and the point in 
  time when all comments were addressed.

  There is a solid support for this document within the working group.

Document Quality

  Yes we know of implementations of this protocol.


Personnel

  Loa ANdersson is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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 reviewed the document when it was first
   posted, as part of the working group adoption process and when 
   preparing the two wglcs.


(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 necessary.

(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 the authors has stated on the MPLS WG mailing list, that they
   are unaware on aany other IPRs that the disclosed.

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

   The Datatracker indicates two IPR disclosures against this 
   document, in reality it is the same disclosure that was renewed 
   when the draft became a working group document.

   There were very little discussion of the IPR, the wg routinely 
   accept IPR disclosures that says "free to implement".

(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? 

   This document was initiated because operational problems were
   found in deployed networks. The working groups agreed that this
   problem had to be resolved and is fully behind the document.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

   The document passes the nits-tool clean, manual checks have not 
   revealed any other nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   No formal review necessary.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

   Yes all the references are correctly split in normative and 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?

   No, all normative references are to existing 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.

   This document will not change any 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 Shepherd has reviewed that IANA section and IANA allocation
   requests several times. The section is clear and well written. 

   The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "LSR
   Capability Flags", the allocation policies are clearly defined. The¨
   initial allocation is documented.

   The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled
   "Interface Index Flags",  the allocation policies are clearly 
   defined. The initial allocation is documented.

   This document defines "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD4", IANA is requested
   to create a new sub-registry for this TLV, the allocation policies 
   are clearly defined. The initial allocations are documented.

(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 such 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 such automated reviews necessary.

Back