Shepherd writeup

 (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 MPLS working group request that: 

  Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic
                         Associated Channel


   is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.

   Since this document updates RFC5586, a Standards track RFC, it 
   need to be on the on the Standards Track. What's more this update
   is the entire intent of the document.


(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

   The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of
   the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header
   (ACH).  RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be
   carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the Associated 
   Channel Header (ACH) between the fixed header fields and the G-ACh 
   message.  These TLVs are called ACH TLVs

   No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses an ACH TLV.  Furthermore,
   it is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant
   problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to
   be processed substantially in hardware, the use of ACH TLVs is

   This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the
   associated IANA registry.

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 

   There is a strong support for this document in the working group
   and it has been has been well reviewed.

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?

   Our AD and also on of the co-authors claims that he has 
   237 implementations running on various households devices, 
   including his cat. Since the AD is a Welshman, telling of more or
   less fantastic stories is a welish knack. The shepherd does not 
   take this seriously.

   Since this is removing an unused "feature" from RFC 5586 the
   shepherd believes that implementations or IPRs are not possible.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
   Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.

   Spencer Dawkins is/will be 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.

   Considering the somewhat unusual history this document have, the 
   shepherd has reviewed three times. When the author first solicited
   comments on the un-posted document, when we had the poll to make 
   a working group documentidea and during working group last call.
   Please note that the discrepancy between our current practice; 
   not defining GACh header TLVs (something that the working group
   have agreed to) and what is said in RFC 5586 was pointed out in 
   an IESG review of another document specifying a channel type for 
   the GACh. This document does nothing more than document a current
   practice that has already been established and agreed to by the 
   working group. 
   The document shepherd believes it is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?


(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.


(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.

   Yes - both authors have confirmed tht they are not aware of 
   any IPR for this doucment.

   It is the shepherds opinion, that this is not possible to 

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

   It is the shepherds opinion, that this is not possible to generate
   any IPRs 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 is behind this document. It has been well 
   discussed and reviewed.  

(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

   No nits. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   There are no such formal review criteria.

(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 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.

   The publication will update RFC 5586, this is captured and 
   discussed in all relevant places in the 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).

   The IANA consideration section is clear and well written. The only
   actions requried by IANA is to remove an unused registry and 
   remove a corresponding column in another registry.

(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.

(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.