Relayed Echo Reply Mechanism for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-11

[Ballot comment]

- 3.2: The description of the destination address offset isn't
clear to me. If this is some common thing in MPLS though, that's
fine. If not, maybe it'd be worth being clearer here.
(It does become clear later though, so this is a nit.)

[Ballot comment]
I have some comments/questions:

1. TBD2 is the Relay Node Address Stack TLV Type.  There seems to be some confusion in the text: Section 4.2. (Receiving an Echo Request)  says that the "Type of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is chosen from the range 32768 to 49161…” giving the impression that any value can be used, while 8.2. (New TLV) in the IANA Considerations says that a "suggested value should be assigned” giving me the impression that the assignment is just a suggestion (and somehow reinforcing the text in 4.2), but the original definition in 3.2. (Relay Node Address Stack) simply says that the "value should be assigned by IANA”.  Assuming that you simply want an assignment and that it would be what is used, please clean the text up; I suggest just referring to the value as TBD2 (in 4.2 and 8.2) and explicitly including the text about the assignment and the range (from 3.2) in 8.2.

2. Section 4.1. (Sending an Echo Request) says that the "Relay Node Address Stack TLV MUST be carried in the Echo Request message if the relay functionality is required”.  How does the initiator know that it needs the functionality?

3. Section 4.2. (Receiving an Echo Request) "A second or more address entries MAY also be added if necessary, depending on implementation.”  Isn’t this document defining how the implementation should work?  What are the cases where these additional entries may be added?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  The security review from 6 months ago hasn't been fully addressed in the draft and I think it would be helpful to do so.  There were responses given on list, but corresponding updates didn't happen for all of the comments.

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05301.html

For the first comment, the response was that this mechanism does not deprecate use of "Echo Reply".  The language in the first paragraph of section 3 should be made clear on that point.

For the second comment:
    s4.1: Is the outermost label allowed to be set to 255 to support the
    “ping” mode or must it always be set to 1, 2, etc. to support “traceroute"
    mode - as described in RFC 4379 s4.3?  I know s5 is just an example
    but it really looks like this extension is just supposed to be for fault
    isolation.

The response via email says it is possible to set it to 255, could this be made clear in the draft?

The third comment was addressed, thank you.

It was also good to see the security considerations cover path discovery as well as DoS related attacks.  Thanks for that!

[Ballot comment]
1) In Sec 2 above Figure 1 "1) Note that throughout the document, routable address means that it is
  possible to route an IP packet to this address using the normal
  information exchanged by the IGP operating in the AS." 
  Shouldn't that be "by the IGP and BGP (or EGP) operating in the AS"??

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the Message Types subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

a single new message type will be registered from the "Standards Action" range (0-191) as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: MPLS Relayed Echo Reply
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the TLVs subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

a single new TLV will be registered from the "Standards Action" range (32768-49161) as follows:

Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
TLV Name: Relay Node Address Stack TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Sub-TLV Registry:

Third, in the Return Codes subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

a single new return code will be registered from the "Standards Action" range (0-191) as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: One or more TLVs not returned due to MTU size
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In some inter autonomous system (AS) and inter-area deployment
  scenarios for RFC 4379 "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and
  Traceroute", a replying Label Switching Router (LSR) may not have the
  available route to an initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to
  the initiator would be discarded resulting in false negatives or
  complete failure of operation of LSP Ping and Traceroute.  This
  document describes extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable the
  replying LSR to have the capability to relay the Echo Response by a
  set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator.  This document
  updates RFC 4379.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1945/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/828/

  The MPLS WG requests that

                    Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
                          draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-03

    is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.

Note: On the reuesst from the co-author this document was sent back
            to the wg for "further work" very late in the approval process
          (document was in IETF Last Call). The document has then been
          updated and re-reviewed. Most of the earlier Shepherds Write-up
          stands. Where changes has been made this clearly marked.

(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.
    This document specifies protocol extensions to LSP Ping to enable a
    replying LSR to have the capability to relay Echo Response messages.
    Since the LSP Ping protocol is extended this is a Standards Track
    document.
    The document header says 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

  When the first version of RFC 4379 (a.k.a LSP Ping) were deployed
  it was quickly understood that in some inter autonomous system
  (AS) and inter-area deployments a LSR replying to an MPLS Echo
  request LSR may not have the available route to the initiator. The Echo
  Reply message sent to the initiator would be discarded resulting in
  false negatives or complete failure of operation. This document describes
  extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable LSRs to have the capability
  to relay the Echo Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes.
  This document updates RFC 4379.

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?

  Nothing out of the ordinary.

  2015-07-09: Pulling  a document back this late in the process is
  certainly "out of the ordinary".
  The updates to the draft were discussed at the working group meeting in
  Dallas, and an MPLS-RT review were done at about the same time and the
  wglc was done. The effect is that the document (now) has been very well
  reviewed and has good support in the working.

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 deployments of this specification.
  We also have indications that vendors have plans to implement.
, A poll for implementations has been sent to the working group, and
  the Shepherd Write-Up will be updated as we receive more information.

  2015-07-09: We started a new implementation poll during the wglc, the
  result is about the same, but the "intention to implement" is slightly strong.
  Also one of the implementers stated that they were in the process of updating
  their implementation to match the specification as it  stands after the update.

Personnel

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

  Loa Andersson is the document Shepherd
  Deborah Brungard is 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 is convinced 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, there has been a good debate on this draft, most of it taking place
  when the individual the preceded the working group document was reviewed
  by the MPLS review team.

(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 are 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 replied to the IPR poll, stating that they are not
  aware of any other IPR than what is already disclosed

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

    There is one IPR disclosure against this document.
    The terms quoted are such that it has not generated any discussion, we
    have accepted such terms for along term.

(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 LSP Ping is a very commonly deployed protocol, the extensions
  described/specified in this document has been identified as necessary
  by several operators and implementers.

(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.

  Update to the Shepherds Writeup (for version -04) - marked Oct 2014.

  The ID nits points out that the pre-5378 boiler plate is used, however
  the shepherd does not think this is necessary, since both the original
  co-authors of RFC 4379 have  granted the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust.

  2015-07-09: The discussion the pre-5378 boiler plate resulted in that the we
  to not use the the boiler-plate. There are no ad verbatim quotes from RFC 4379.
  The document itself is a merger of two individual drafts. The first is pre-5378,
  but both authors has announced that they are willing to assign there rights to
  the IETF trust. The other document is post-5378.

  Oct 2014:
  The statement above is not correct, it it true that we had the two original
  co-authors agree to grant their BCP 78 rights to the IANA trust, however
  after further investigation there are many more people that would need to
  do the same. We have done an effort to reach all of them, but did not
  succeed, so the pre-5378 boilet plate should be used in this document.

 
  Oct 2014 / 2015-07-09:
  The nits tool find one instance of non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
  document.. As far as the shepherd understands this is generated by one of
  the authors mail address.

  No other nits found.

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

  No such formal reviews necessary.

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

    Yes - the references are correctly split up 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?

  All normative references are to existing RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative 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.

  There are no RFCs for which the status is changed, but RFC 4379 is
  updated, this is discussed in the abstract and in the Introduction.


(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 section (and the info related to in the draft) is well and clearly
  written, a new message type is requested.
  The shepherd has reviewed the IANA section several times.

(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 new 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.

  Non such automated checks necessary.

  The MPLS WG requests that

                    Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
                          draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-03

    is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.

Note: On the reuesst from the co-author this document was sent back
            to the wg for "further work" very late in the approval process
          (document was in IETF Last Call). The document has then been
          updated and re-reviewed. Most of the earlier Shepherds Write-up
          stands. Where changes has been made this clearly marked.

(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.
    This document specifies protocol extensions to LSP Ping to enable a
    replying LSR to have the capability to relay Echo Response messages.
    Since the LSP Ping protocol is extended this is a Standards Track
    document.
    The document header says 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

  When the first version of RFC 4379 (a.k.a LSP Ping) were deployed
  it was quickly understood that in some inter autonomous system
  (AS) and inter-area deployments a LSR replying to an MPLS Echo
  request LSR may not have the available route to the initiator. The Echo
  Reply message sent to the initiator would be discarded resulting in
  false negatives or complete failure of operation. This document describes
  extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable LSRs to have the capability
  to relay the Echo Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes.
  This document updates RFC 4379.

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?

  Nothing out of the ordinary.

  2015-07-09: Pulling  a document back this late in the process is
  certainly "out of the ordinary".
  The updates to the draft were discussed at the working group meeting in
  Dallas, and an MPLS-RT review were done at about the same time and the
  wglc was done. The effect is that the document (now) has been very well
  reviewed and has good support in the working.

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 deployments of this specification.
  We also have indications that vendors have plans to implement.
, A poll for implementations has been sent to the working group, and
  the Shepherd Write-Up will be updated as we receive more information.

  2015-07-09: We started a new implementation poll during the wglc, the
  result is about the same, but the "intention to implement" is slightly strong.
  Also one of the implementers stated that they were in the process of updating
  their implementation to match the specification as it  stands after the update.

Personnel

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

  Loa Andersson is the document Shepherd
  Deborah Brungard is 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 is convinced 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, there has been a good debate on this draft, most of it taking place
  when the individual the preceded the working group document was reviewed
  by the MPLS review team.

(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 are 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 replied to the IPR poll, stating that they are not
  aware of any other IPR than what is already disclosed

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

    There is one IPR disclosure against this document.
    The terms quoted are such that it has not generated any discussion, we
    have accepted such terms for along term.

(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 LSP Ping is a very commonly deployed protocol, the extensions
  described/specified in this document has been identified as necessary
  by several operators and implementers.

(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.

  Update to the Shepherds Writeup (for version -04) - marked Oct 2014.

  The ID nits points out that the pre-5378 boiler plate is used, however
  the shepherd does not think this is necessary, since both the original
  co-authors of RFC 4379 have  granted the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust.

  2015-07-09: The discussion the pre-5378 boiler plate resulted in that the we
  to not use the the boiler-plate. There are no ad verbatim quotes from RFC 4379.
  The document itself is a merger of two individual drafts. The first is pre-5378,
  but both authors has announced that they are willing to assign there rights to
  the IETF trust. The other document is post-5378.

  Oct 2014:
  The statement above is not correct, it it true that we had the two original
  co-authors agree to grant their BCP 78 rights to the IANA trust, however
  after further investigation there are many more people that would need to
  do the same. We have done an effort to reach all of them, but did not
  succeed, so the pre-5378 boilet plate should be used in this document.

 
  Oct 2014 / 2015-07-09:
  The nits tool find one instance of non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
  document.. As far as the shepherd understands this is generated by one of
  the authors mail address.

  No other nits found.

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

  No such formal reviews necessary.

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

    Yes - the references are correctly split up 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?

  All normative references are to existing RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative 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.

  There are no RFCs for which the status is changed, but RFC 4379 is
  updated, this is discussed in the abstract and in the Introduction.


(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 section (and the info related to in the draft) is well and clearly
  written, a new message type is requested.
  The shepherd has reviewed the IANA section several times.

(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 new 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.

  Non such automated checks necessary.

Hi,

Last call is over.

You got a number of comments:

Ops Dir review from Carlos. You're already discussing.
IANA statement from Pearl. Needs a response.
Gen Art review from Joel. Needs a response.

I'll put the document into "Revised I-D needed" state.

Thanks for the work.

Adrian

  The MPLS WG requests that

                    Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
                          draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-03

    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.
    This document specifies protocol extensions to LSP Ping to enable a
    replying LSR to have the capability to relay Echo Response messages.
    Since the LSP Ping protocol is extended this is a Standards Track
    document.
    The document header says 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

  When the first version of RFC 4379 (a.k.a LSP Ping) were deployed
  it was quickly understood that in some inter autonomous system
  (AS) and inter-area deployments a LSR replying to an MPLS Echo
  request LSR may not have the available route to the initiator. The Echo
  Reply message sent to the initiator would be discarded resulting in
  false negatives or complete failure of operation. This document describes
  extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable LSRs to have the capability
  to relay the Echo Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes.
  This document updates RFC 4379.

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?

  Nothing out of the ordinary.

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 deployments of this specification.
  We also have indications that vendors have plans to implement.
, A poll for implementations has been sent to the working group, and
  the Shepherd Write-Up will be updated as we receive more information.

Personnel

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

  Loa Andersson is the document Shepherd
  Adrian Farrel is 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 is convinced 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, there has been a good debate on this draft, most of it taking place
  when the individual the preceded the working group document was reviewed
  by the MPLS review team.

(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 are 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 replied to the IPR poll, stating that they are not
  aware of any other IPR than what is already disclosed

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

    There is one IPR disclosure against this document.
    The terms quoted are such that it has not generated any discussion, we
    have accepted such terms for along term.

(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 LSP Ping is a very commonly deployed protocol, the extensions
  described/specified in this document has been identified as necessary
  by several operators and implementers.

(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.

  Update to the Shepherds Writeup (for version -04) - marked Oct 2014.

  The ID nits points out that the pre-5378 boiler plate is used, however
  the shepherd does not think this is necessary, since both the original
  co-authors of RFC 4379 have  granted the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust.

  Oct 2014:
  The statement above is not correct, it it true that we had the two original
  co-authors agree to grant their BCP 78 rights to the IANA trust, however
  after further investigation there are many more people that would need to
  do the same. We have done an effort to reach all of them, but did not
  succeed, so the pre-5378 boilet plate should be used in this document.

  Oct 2014:
  The nits tool finds a cae of using uppercase "SHOULD" in combination with
  lowercase "not", this was introduced between version -03 and -04. The
  authors have agreed to change this for the next version.

  Oct 2014:
  The nits toll also find a case of an unused reference, theis was also introduced
  between version -03 and -04, authors for a short period of time had text in
  the document making this reference necessary, but before posting agreed to
  not include that text. The authors have agreed to change this for the next version.
 
  Oct 2014:
  The nits tool find one instance of non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
  document.. A>s far as the shepherd understands this is generated by one of
  the authors mail address.

  No other nits found.

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

  No such formal reviews necessary.

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

    Yes - the references are correctly split up 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?

  All normative references are to existing RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative 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.

  There are no RFCs for which the status is changed, but RFC 4379 is
  updated, this is discussed in the abstract and in the Introduction.


(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 section (and the info related to in the draft) is well and clearly
  written, a new message type is requested.
  The shepherd has reviewed the IANA section several times.

(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 new 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.

  Non such automated checks necessary.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-04.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has a comment regarding the IANA actions requested in this draft.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which need to be completed.

First, in the Message Types subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registr located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

a single new Message Type will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Meaning: MPLS Relayed Echo Reply
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that the value to be registered will be allocated from the Standards Action range.

Second, in the TLVs subregistry also in the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registr located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

a new TLV is to be registered as follows:

Type: [ TBD-at-registration ]
TLV Name: Relay Node Address Stack TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Sub-TLV Registry:

IANA understands that the value to be registered will be allocated from the Standards Action range.

Third, in the Return Codes subregistry also in the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registr located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

a new Return Code to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD ]
Meaning: Response Packet length was exceeded unexpected by the Relay Node Address Stack TLV unexpected
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that the value to be registered will be allocated from the Standards Action range.

NOTE: We see that although only one single "TBD" placeholder is used in all three requested
types in the IANA considerations section of this draft, the authors are not requesting
the *same* value for all three assignments, Message Type, TLV and Return Code. 
The single placeholder "TBD" indicates different values in different sections, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.


IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-10-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  In some inter autonomous system (AS) and inter-area deployment
  scenarios for RFC 4379 "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and
  Traceroute", a replying LSR may not have the available route to the
  initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to the initiator would be
  discarded resulting in false negatives or complete failure of
  operation of LSP Ping and Traceroute.  This document describes
  extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable the replying Label
  Switching Router (LSR) to have the capability to relay the Echo
  Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator.
  This document updates RFC 4379.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1945/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/828/

  The MPLS WG requests that

                    Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
                          draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-03

    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.
    This document specifies protocol extensions to LSP Ping to enable a
    replying LSR to have the capability to relay Echo Response messages.
    Since the LSP Ping protocol is extended this is a Standards Track
    document.
    The document header says 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

  When the first version of RFC 4379 (a.k.a LSP Ping) were deployed
  it was quickly understood that in some inter autonomous system
  (AS) and inter-area deployments a LSR replying to an MPLS Echo
  request LSR may not have the available route to the initiator. The Echo
  Reply message sent to the initiator would be discarded resulting in
  false negatives or complete failure of operation. This document describes
  extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable LSRs to have the capability
  to relay the Echo Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes.
  This document updates RFC 4379.

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?

  Nothing out of the ordinary.

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 deployments of this specification.
  We also have indications that vendors have plans to implement.
, A poll for implementations has been sent to the working group, and
  the Shepherd Write-Up will be updated as we receive more information.

Personnel

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

  Loa Andersson is the document Shepherd
  Adrian Farrel is 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 is convinced 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, there has been a good debate on this draft, most of it taking place
  when the individual the preceded the working group document was reviewed
  by the MPLS review team.

(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 are 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 replied to the IPR poll, stating that they are not
  aware of any other IPR than what is already disclosed

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

    There is one IPR disclosure against this document.
    The terms quoted are such that it has not generated any discussion, we
    have accepted such terms for along term.

(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 LSP Ping is a very commonly deployed protocol, the extensions
  described/specified in this document has been identified as necessary
  by several operators and implementers.

(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.

  The ID nits points out that the pre-5378 boiler plate is used, however
  the shepherd does not think this is necessary, since both the original
  co-authors of RFC 4379 have  granted the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust.
 
  The document shepherd and (I think) the original authors of the RFC 4379
  need advice on how to exactly handle this.

  No other nits found.

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

  No such formal reviews necessary.

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

    Yes - the references are correctly split up 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?

  All normative references are to existing RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative 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.

  There are no RFCs for which the status is changed, but RFC 4379 is
  updated, this is discussed in the abstract and in the Introduction.


(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 section (and the info related to in the draft) is well and clearly
  written, a new message type is requested.
  The shepherd has reviewed the IANA section several times.

(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 new 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.

  Non such automated checks necessary.