The MPLS WG requests that
IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS OAM
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-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?
We request that this is published as a Standards Track RFC, this is
also indicated in the title page header. The RFC needs to a Standards
Track RFC since it updates RFC 4379 and makes an allocation from an IETF
Consensus IANA registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values/ipv6-routeralert-values.xhtml
The intended status in clearly indicated in the document header.
(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 updates RFC 4379
This document fixes a gap in MPLS/IPv6, in RFC 4379 that defines
the MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute mechanism, a Router Alert Option MUST
be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Request messages, and may
conditionally be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Reply messages.
A generic "Router shall examine packet" Option Value is used for the
IPv4 Router Alert Option (RAO). There is no corresponding generic Router Alert
Option Value defined for IPv6. This document allocates this new generic IPv6
RAO Value. The RAO value can be used by the entire set of MPLS OAM
functions as needed, but the initial motivation comes from using RFC 4379
with IPv6.
The document defines the RAO that will be used in the MPLS Echo Request
and MPLS Echo Reply messagesin IPv6 environments. Consequently, it
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?
This document is generally accepted by the working group, there are several
implementations of RFC 4379 going on or planned and this gap is
widely recognized.
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?
No expert reviews necessary!
The question about implementations is a bit imprecise for this document.
There are several implementations that will use the assigned RAO Value,
whether this qualifies as "implementations of the protocol" is open for
debate.
The RAO Value is necessary to correctly implement LSP Ping and Traceroute
for IPv6 networks.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Document Shepherd: Loa ANdersson
Responsible Area Director: Adrian Farrel
(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.
Since this document is one of the first that actually fills one of the gaps pointed
out by draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap (in AUTH48) it has been of interest to follow
the development of this document carefully. The document shepherd has read
every new version of the document, and reviewed it at the wg adoption poll, wglc
and prior to requesting 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 the authors have declared on the working group mailing list that
they are unaware of any IPRs that relate 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
disclosures.
No IPRs disclosed 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 very strong consensus that we need MPLS and MPLS OAM tools
for IPv6 networks (as matter of fact it is also a policy by IESG); this document
fills an exsting gap to make such implementations possible.
This document has also been discussed in and reviewed by the 6man wg.
(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 discontent!
(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 document passes the nits toll clean.
One comment
- date in the past, I can understand that this is useful when submitting drafts
but for documents that been processed for a while, it is just extra noise; can
we update the nits tool to only run that check if it is part of the posting
process.
The situation is that a document that was written about 1k RFCs before 5378
is updated by this new document, but to the best of my understanding no text from
that document is reproduced; I venture to say that the disclaimer is not needed.
(But I'm happily stand corrected).
(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 split!
All normative references are to existing RFCs.
(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 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.
No - the publication of this document will not change the 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 IANA considerations are well and clearly written, the registry from
which the allocation is made is clearly identified.
If anything we could have asked for assignement of the "first free" value,
but since this seems to be IANA practice, it would be redundant.
(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 defined.
(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 formal language is used in the document.