Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions (MNA)
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-16

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements and RFC 9613, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for all the work that went into the production of this excellent document. Thanks also to Adrian for the helpful shepherd write-up. I have just a few comments.

### Item 30, in-use

  30.  An MNA solution MUST allow the in-use control and management
        planes to determine the ability of downstream LSRs to accept
        and/or process a given NAI.

What work is ”in-use“ doing here? Could it be deleted without harm?

### Item 38 conflicts with Item 18

  18. It is RECOMENDED that an MNA specification support network
      actions for private use (See Section 4.1 of [RFC8126]).

vs.

  38.  MNA solution specifications MUST request IANA to create
        registries and make allocations from those registries for NAIs
        as necessary to ensure unambiguous identification of NAs.

But private use code points, by definition, don't have IANA registries (although the range will be designated as private use in the registry). RFC 8126 §4.1:

      IANA does not record assignments from registries
  or ranges with this policy
 
Probably a little work on the wording of item 38 will fix this, although I don't have a specific suggestion. By the way, you misspelled RECOMMENDED in item 18.

### Item 44, unclear

  44.  A network action solution MAY use post-stack ancillary data
        where the size of that ancillary data if it was inserted into
        the label stack could prevent the coexistence of the network
        action with other in-use MPLS network functions

I think your intent here is something like,

NEW:
  44.  A network action solution MUST NOT use post-stack ancillary data
        unless the size of that ancillary data if it was inserted into
        the label stack could prevent the coexistence of the network
        action with other in-use MPLS network functions.

Is that correct? If so, consider that or some related rewrite. If not, please help me understand what you intend.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to Dan Harkins for the security review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-13-secdir-early-harkins-2024-05-02/

Specifically, he points out that:

but the the actions to be performed are indicated by
"Network Action Indicators (NAIs)". These NAIs are to be encoded
according to RFC 3031, which is the MPLS Architecture document.
RFC 3031 does not specify an encoding of a thing called an NAI.
Unfortunately, RFC 4282 does. It defines a "Network Access
Identifier" which is technically different than a "Network Action
Indicator" but I think the naming in this draft unfortunately needs
to be changed

Is there a reason the authors and WG think having to different but similar
things called NAI is not a problem here? Or is this an oversight that should
be corrected to avoid confusion?

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: adrian@olddog.co.uk, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions (MNA)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Requirements for Solutions that
Support MPLS Network Actions (MNA)'
  as Informational RFC

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-05-06. 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


  This document specifies requirements for the development of MPLS
  Network Actions (MNA) which affect the forwarding or other processing
  of MPLS packets.  These requirements are informed by a number of
  proposals for additions to the MPLS information in the labeled packet
  to allow such actions to be performed, either by a transit or
  terminating Label Switching Router (i.e., the Label Edge Router -
  LER).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements

== Document History

> Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This publication request comes after the second working group "last call."

The first last call led to some controversy and substantial comments. The
draft was returned to the WG for more discussion and further revisions.

The second last call had good consensus within the working group.

> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

The debate about whether or not to support both in-stack data (ISD) and post-
stack data (PSD) has been uneasy at times. However, this document has found a
way of describing the requirements for both without mandating that either be
part of the solutions (that being left for the solutions documents to
determine). Therefore, this document was able to achieve good consensus.

There was a last minute discussion about the need for this work based on
whether the use cases were convincing and whether there was operator
support. Three operators immediately engaged in the discussion, and one
specific use case was called out as an immediate requirement.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
> so, please summarize 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 appeal or extreme discontent expressed at this stage.

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
> either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

This is an Informational requirements document. It cannot be implemented.

== Additional Reviews

> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
> reviews took place.

Chiefly, no. But there are two areas of overlap:

1. In expressing how information may be carried after the MPLS label stack,
  this document relates to work done in the PALS working group. Notably, the
  PALS working group: has a high overlap in participants with the MPLS working
  group, has largely run out of steam, has one of its co-chairs as co-author
  of this document.

2. One of the proposed use cases for MPLS Network Actions is to carry OAM
  information within MPLS packets that also carry data. This makes it a tool
  that will be of interest to the IPPM working group. However, it is premature
  for that group to be involved - when proposals are made for how the OAM data
  is carried, that should be shared with IPPM.

> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal language.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
> been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
> in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal language.

== Document Shepherd Checks

> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

This shepherd's review of the version available at the first last call found
a significant number of issues of varying degrees of severity. But the shepherd
review conducted prior to publication request found only a small number of minor
points (all now resolved).

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

This document has been compared with the list for the RTG Area and no problems
identified.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This is proposed as an Informational RFC.
This is appropriate for a requirements document.
It is marked as such in the document and in the Datatracker.

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The authors formally confirmed that they knew of no IPR at the time of the
first last call. The authors informally (in email to the shepherd) reconfirmed
this prior to the second last call.

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There are just three co-authors.
By responding to the informal IPR poll, they have implicitly confirmed their
willingness to be listed as co-authors.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits is clean.
No additional issues were spotted by the shepherd.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

The references appear to be correct.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

All references are to IETF material.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

No downrefs

> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are to RFCs

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No status changes made.

> 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

A minimal "no action required" IANA considerations section is present.
It is appropriate.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None such

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements

== Document History

> Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This publication request comes after the second working group "last call."

The first last call led to some controversy and substantial comments. The
draft was returned to the WG for more discussion and further revisions.

The second last call had good consensus within the working group.

> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

The debate about whether or not to support both in-stack data (ISD) and post-
stack data (PSD) has been uneasy at times. However, this document has found a
way of describing the requirements for both without mandating that either be
part of the solutions (that being left for the solutions documents to
determine). Therefore, this document was able to achieve good consensus.

There was a last minute discussion about the need for this work based on
whether the use cases were convincing and whether there was operator
support. Three operators immediately engaged in the discussion, and one
specific use case was called out as an immediate requirement.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
> so, please summarize 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 appeal or extreme discontent expressed at this stage.

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
> either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

This is an Informational requirements document. It cannot be implemented.

== Additional Reviews

> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
> reviews took place.

Chiefly, no. But there are two areas of overlap:

1. In expressing how information may be carried after the MPLS label stack,
  this document relates to work done in the PALS working group. Notably, the
  PALS working group: has a high overlap in participants with the MPLS working
  group, has largely run out of steam, has one of its co-chairs as co-author
  of this document.

2. One of the proposed use cases for MPLS Network Actions is to carry OAM
  information within MPLS packets that also carry data. This makes it a tool
  that will be of interest to the IPPM working group. However, it is premature
  for that group to be involved - when proposals are made for how the OAM data
  is carried, that should be shared with IPPM.

> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal language.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
> been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
> in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal language.

== Document Shepherd Checks

> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

This shepherd's review of the version available at the first last call found
a significant number of issues of varying degrees of severity. But the shepherd
review conducted prior to publication request found only a small number of minor
points (all now resolved).

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

This document has been compared with the list for the RTG Area and no problems
identified.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This is proposed as an Informational RFC.
This is appropriate for a requirements document.
It is marked as such in the document and in the Datatracker.

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The authors formally confirmed that they knew of no IPR at the time of the
first last call. The authors informally (in email to the shepherd) reconfirmed
this prior to the second last call.

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There are just three co-authors.
By responding to the informal IPR poll, they have implicitly confirmed their
willingness to be listed as co-authors.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits is clean.
No additional issues were spotted by the shepherd.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

The references appear to be correct.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

All references are to IETF material.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

No downrefs

> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are to RFCs

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No status changes made.

> 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

A minimal "no action required" IANA considerations section is present.
It is appropriate.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None such

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements

== Document History

> Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This publication request comes after the second working group "last call."

The first last call led to some controversy and substantial comments. The
draft was returned to the WG for more discussion and further revisions.

The second last call had good consensus within the working group.

> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

The debate about whether or not to support both in-stack data (ISD) and post-
stack data (PSD) has been uneasy at times. However, this document has found a
way of describing the requirements for both without mandating that either be
part of the solutions (that being left for the solutions documents to
determine). Therefore, this document was able to achieve good consensus.

There was a last minute discussion about the need for this work based on
whether the use cases were convincing and whether there was operator
support. Two operators immediately engaged in the discussion, and one
specific use case was called out as an immediate requirement.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
> so, please summarize 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 appeal or extreme discontent expressed at this stage.

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
> either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

This is an Informational requirements document. It cannot be implemented.

== Additional Reviews

> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
> reviews took place.

Chiefly, no. But there are two areas of overlap:

1. In expressing how information may be carried after the MPLS label stack,
  this document relates to work done in the PALS working group. Notably, the
  PALS working group: has a high overlap in participants with the MPLS working
  group, has largely run out of steam, has one of its co-chairs as co-author
  of this document.

2. One of the proposed use cases for MPLS Network Actions is to carry OAM
  information within MPLS packets that also carry data. This makes it a tool
  that will be of interest to the IPPM working group. However, it is premature
  for that group to be involved - when proposals are made for how the OAM data
  is carried, that should be shared with IPPM.

> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal language.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
> been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
> in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal language.

== Document Shepherd Checks

> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

This shepherd's review of the version available at the first last call found
a significant number of issues of varying degrees of severity. But the shepherd
review conducted prior to publication request found only a small number of minor
points (all now resolved).

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

This document has been compared with the list for the RTG Area and no problems
identified.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This is proposed as an Informational RFC.
This is appropriate for a requirements document.
It is marked as such in the document and in the Datatracker.

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The authors formally confirmed that they knew of no IPR at the time of the
first last call. The authors informally (in email to the shepherd) reconfirmed
this prior to the second last call.

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There are just three co-authors.
By responding to the informal IPR poll, they have implicitly confirmed their
willingness to be listed as co-authors.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits is clean.
No additional issues were spotted by the shepherd.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

The references appear to be correct.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

All references are to IETF material.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

No downrefs

> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are to RFCs

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No status changes made.

> 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

A minimal "no action required" IANA considerations section is present.
It is appropriate.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None such

DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT 
  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT 

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements

== Document History

> Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This publication request comes after the second working group "last call."

The first last call led to some contraversy and substantial comments. The
draft was returned to the WG for more discussion and further revisions.

The second last call had good consensus within the working group.

> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

The debate about whether or not to support both in-stack data (ISD) and post-
stack data (PSD) has been uneasy at times. However, this document has found a
way of describing the requirements for both without mandating that either be
part of the solutions (that being left for the solutions documents to
determine). Therefore, this document was able to achieve good consensus.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
> so, please summarize 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 appeal or exreme discontent expressed at this stage.

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
> either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

This is an Informational requirements document. It cannot be implemented.

== Additional Reviews

> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
> reviews took place.

Chiefly, no. But there are two areas of overlap:

1. In expressing how information may be carried after the MPLS label stack,
  this document relates to work done in the PALS working group. Notably, the
  PALS working group: has a high overlap in participants wih the MPLS working
  group, has largely run out of steam, has one of its co-chairs as co-author
  of this document.

2. One of the proposed use cases for MPLS Network Actions is to carry OAM
  information within MPLS packets that also carry data. This makes it a tool
  that will be of interest to the IPPM working group. However, it is premature
  for that group to be involved - when proposals are made for how the OAM data
  is carried, that should be shared with IPPM.

> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal language.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
> been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
> in RFC 8342?

No YANG module.

> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal language.

== Document Shepherd Checks

> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

This shepherd's review of the version available at the first last call found
a significant number of issues of varying degrees of severity. But the shepherd
review condicted prior to publication request found only a small number of minor
ponts.

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

This document has been compared with the list for the RTG Area and no problems
identified.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This is proposed as an Informational RFC.
This is appropriate for a requirements document.
It is marked as such in the document and in the datatracker.

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The authors formally confirmed that they knew of no IPR at the time of the
first last call. The authors informally (in email to the shepherd) reconfirmed
this prior to the second last call.

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There are just three co-authors.
By responding to the informal IPR poll, they have implicitly confirmed their
willingness to be listed as co-authors.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits is clean.
No additional issues were spotted by the shepherd.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

The references appear to be correct.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

All references are to IETF material.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

No downrefs

> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are to RFCs

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No status changes made.

> 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

A minimal "no action required" IANA considerations section is present.
It is appropriate.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None such