Shepherd writeup

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.

The MPLS working group requests that 

          Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection

is published a 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?

   The draft should be published as a Proposed Standard. The document 
    updates a Standards Track RFC and clarify behaviors and procedures in 
    that RFC, the document therefore needs to be a  Standards Track RFC.
   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

   This document contains four updates to PSC [RFC6378].  Three of them
   address issues that were identified in reviews that were undertaken by
   ITU-T SG15 and communicated to the MPLS WG in a liaison statement.
   The fourth clears up a behavior which was not well explained in RFC6378. 
   These updates are not changes to the protocol's packet format or to PSC's
   design, but are corrections and clarifications to specific aspects of
   the protocol's procedures.

  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.

Working Group Summary

    The document were well reviewed in the working group, by SG15 experts
    and there is a general agreement that these updates of RFC 6378 is 

  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 working group process were smooth, the document were reviewed 
    by he MPLS Review Team. There have been no controversies, but some
    constructive discussion on what should go in this document and what 
    belongs in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu.

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?

    There are implementations of RFC 6378, that is why this update is urgent.
    We know that the implementations we know have included the updates
    specified in this document, in fact this is where the updates originated.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

    Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD.
    Loa Andersson is the document Shepherd.

(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 has fully reviewed the document three times;
    when the poll to make the document a wg document were prepared; when
    preparing the wglc, and when writing the Shepherd Writeup.
    The document Shepherd has also been involved in discussions about the
    document as it has progressed.

(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 formal 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, at an early stage this document were a normative
    reference in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu. That document have a very strict
    schedule. Later the reference to this document were removed.

(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.

    The author has stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that he is unaware
    of any IPRs that is relevant for this document.

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

    No IPRs has been declared 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 supports 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 nits-tool report three warnings:

    - RFC 6428 is defined as a reference, but never used.
    - the document header say "Updates RFC 6378", it should be 
      "Updates 6378".
    - the document uses [BP] to indicate information on the LSP state,
      the nits-tool interpret this as a reference
      Note: When we had the same "problem" in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu
      we substituted the [ ]  with { }, this has been attempted for this document
      also, but in three cases it has not be done.

      All of this will be updated if a revised ID is need or in a RFC Editor 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 formal reviews necessary.

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

    Yes, the references are correctly split in 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 the references are to existing RFCs and the informative references is
    to a liaison statement from SG15 to the MPLS wg, found in the IETF 
    liaison log.

(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 document updates RFC 6378, this is correctly captured in the 
    document header, in the Abstract and in the Introduction.

(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).

    There are no requests for IANA actions in this document

(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 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 reviews necessary.