Shepherd writeup

The MPLS working group requests that

                                  mLDP Node Protection

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 is the
  right type of RFC since the document both specifies protocol procedures and 
  protocol elements. The document 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 describes procedures to support node protection for
   P2P and MP2MP LSPs built by  mLDP.  In order to protect a node N,
   the Point of Local Repair (PLR) of N must learn the Merge Point (MPT)
   LSR(s) of node N to be able to redirected traffic if node N fails.  Redirecting
   the traffic around the failed node N depends on existing P2P LSPs
   from the PLRto the MPTs bypassing node N. 
   The procedures to setup these P2P LSPs are outside the scope of
   this document, but one could use RSVP-TE or LDP LFA based
   techniques to accomplish this.

   The solution described in this document signals the MPT LSR(s) to the
   PLR LSR(s) via a Targeted LDP (tLDP) session [RFC5036].  By having a
   tLDP session with the PLR, most of the mLDP features currently
   defined should just work, like Make-Before-Break (MBB), Graceful
   Restart (GR), Typed Wildcard FEC support, etc.  All this is achieved
   at the expense of having an additional tLDP session between an MPT
   and PLR.

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 

   Nothing worth noting, the progress through the working group, from the adoption
   poll to the wglc has been smooth. 
   The working group is behind the idea that different a full set of tools for 
   different protection scenarios, this draft is one of them.

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 do not currently know any implementations, but an implementation
   poll has been sent to the working group mailing list and the Write-up will
   be updated as soon as we receive more information.


  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 doucment was reviewed by the shepherd when if was first posted to the
    working group, in preparation for the working group adoption poll, when 
   preparing the wglc and while writing the Shepherds Write-up.

   The Shepherd believes 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 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 authors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that they are unaware
   of any other IPRs than those already disclosed.

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

   There are two IPRs disclosed against this document, the working has been 
   notified (at wg poll and wglc), but there has been no explicit discussion.
   The working group chair take this to mean that the working group are 
   comfortable with the disclosed IPRs.

(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 as a whole support 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 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 formal reviews needed.

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

    Yes the references are correctly identified as 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 references (even informative) 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.

    The publication will not change status of any existing RFC.

(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 first reviewed the IANA section when this was on individual
    document, and proposed substantial changes. The IANA section has not
    really changed since then.

    The document does not create any new 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 new IANA registries, so no registries that needs Expert Review.

(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 automated reviews, except the nits-tool is necessary.