Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

   The MPLS Working Group requests that 

        Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms 
   Is published as an RFC on the standards track.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

    Requested RFC type: Proposed Standard

    The document header says: Standards track

    This document specifies new protocol elements and procedures, and clearly
    need to be 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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
  or introduction.

     LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and
     Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, as it is currently 
     defined there is no way to verify the connectivity of one or more segments 
     of a MS-PW. This document specifies a method by which
     any T-PE or S-PE can verify the connectivity to any other T-PE or S-PE.
    This document defines a new LSP Ping TLV to support this type of connectivity

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 

    The WG process has been pretty straight-forward. The only thing
    even remotely close to mentioning is that the IPR poll to un-reasonably
    long (started March 15 and ended September 18), for a poll that
    resulted in that "We are not aware of any IPR that relates to this 

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?

    The Working Group chairs has asked for implementations on the 
     working group mailing list, we have received feedbck on on this
     poll and know of implentations of the draft. There has also been 
    statements saying that vendors intend to implement this specification .

     As soon as we see further responses the Writeup will be updated.

    The document has been reviewed through the normal WG process.

     No  MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review been performed or


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

    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 reviewed the document, before it was accepted
    as a mpls wg document and as part of the wglc. In this particular case the
    document Shepherd also made a partial review during the prolonged 
    IPR poll, trying to figure out what was taking time.

(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.

    Each author has stated on the working group mailing list that they are
    un-aware of any IPR that relates to this document.

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

    There are no IPR disclosures 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.  

(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 document passes the ID nits tool clean, with two minor exceptions. 

    References RFC 2119 and FC 4379 are defined as [1] and [3], but in
    the text the authors uses [RFC2119] and [RFC4379]. Resulting in that
    when  [RFC2119] and [RFC4379] show up in the text, the nit tool
    do not recognize them as references. 
    Also when the nits tool encounter [1] and [3] in the definition of 
    references, the conclusion is that they are unused. 

   On the other hand reference [2] is truly "defined but not used".

   This will be corrected if get into "New ID needed" state or by an RFC
    Editors note.

(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 required.

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

    There are only normative references in this document, all of them to
    existing RFC's.

    Though (as said in response to question 11) one reference is defined
    bu not used.

(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 references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure. 

    There are 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 existing RFCs will be changed by the publication of this 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 Shepherd have reviewed the IANA Considerations.

    The IANA considerations are well and clearly written, and what
    is requested in the IANA Considerations are consistent with what is
    in the body of the document.

    The IANA registry for which allocation has been requested is clearly 
    identified. This draft allocates a new TLV type for LSP Ping.

    There are no new IANA registries.

(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 review.