The MPLS working requests that :
mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-02
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?
Should this be "specifies protocol, protocol elements and procedures, and
updates two standard track RFCs" It should be posted as a Proposed
Standard; 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
There are scenarios in which an IP multicast tree traverses an MPLS
domain. It may be desirable to convert the IP multicast tree "seamlessly"
to an MPLS multipoint label switched path (MP-LSP) when the multicast
tree enters into the the MPLS domain. Similarly, the MP-LSP is converted
back to an IP multicast tree when the MPLS domain is exited.
Earlier documents specify procedures for certain kinds of IP multicast
trees to be attached to an MPLS Multipoint Label Switched
Path (MP-LSP). These documents do not specify procedures for attaching
IP "Any Source Multicast" trees to MP-LSPs, nor do they specify procedures
for aggregating multiple IP multicast trees onto a single MP-LSP.
This document specifies the procedures to support these functions. It
does so by defining "wildcard" encodings that make it possible to specify,
when setting up an MP-LSP, that a set of IP multicast trees, or a shared
IP multicast tree, should be attached to that MP-LSP.
Support for non-bidirectional IP "Any Source Multicast" trees is subject
to certain applicability restrictions that are discussed in this document.
This document updates RFCs 6826 and 7246.
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?
This document and another document (draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp) at the
time they were adopted as working group document had a certain overlap.
draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp is just being prepared for wglc
The overlap was resolved by clearly scoping the two documents, and after that
both documents has progressed smoothly.
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 existing implementations of this protocol. We also know of
vendors that plan to implement and operators that have deployed the
protocol.
The level of review for this document is good, it has been reviewed by the
shepherd and wg chairs a number of times, it has been through MPLS-RT review,
wg adoption poll, wglc and RTG Area Quality Assurance review.
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.
This version of the document is ready to for publication.
The Document Shepherd has reviewed the entire document three times: when
preparing the MPLS-RT, when resolving the WG Adoption Poll comments, and
when resolving the WG LC comments. The Document Shepherd also reviewed
parts of the document earlier when resolving the overlap mentioned above.
(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 issues.
(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 have stated on the MPLS wg mailing that they are unaware
of any IPRs related to this draft.
(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 IPRs 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?
There is a strong agreement within the working group that we need a good
way of supporting IP Multicast service on P2MP LSPs, this draft is a generic
approach to solve this problem and has good support in the working
group.
(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 document passes the nits tool clean.
(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 necessary.
(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?
All the normative references are 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 does not change the status of any other 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).
This document does not request any IANA actions.
(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.
This document does not create any new registries that require Expert Review
for future allocations.
(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.