Shepherd writeup
rfc8277-04

                    The MPLS working reguest that 

             Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes
                     draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-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?


  This document updates and specifies label distribution procedurs
  when usign BGP as the label distribution protocol.
  
  The document is an update of RFC 3107 (PS), the updated document 
  needs to be the same type of document.

  We therefor request that the updated document is published as a
  Proposed Standard.

  The doucment header says "Standard 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

   RFC 3107 specifies encodings and procedures for using BGP to
   indicate that a particular router has bound either a single MPLS
   label or a sequence of MPLS labels to a particular address prefix.
   This is done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer
   Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the
   MPLS label(s), and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at
   which said prefix is bound to said label(s). Each such UPDATE also
   advertises a path to the specified prefix, via the specified next
   hop.

   Although there are many implementations and deployments of 
   RFC3107, there are a number of issues with [RFC3107] that have 
   impeded interoperability in the past, and may potentially impede
   interoperability in the future.

   This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 3107.  It defines a new
   BGP Capability to be used when binding a sequence of labels to 
   a prefix; by using this Capability, the interoperability problems
   alluded to above can be avoided.

   This document also removes the unimplemented "Advertising Multiple
   Routes to a Destination" feature, while specifying how to use 
   RFC 7911 to provide the same functionality.

   This document also addresses the issue of the how UPDATEs that 
   bind labels to a given prefix interact with UPDATEs that advertise 
   paths to that prefix but do not bind labels to it.  However, for 
   backwards compatibility, it declares most of these interactions 
   to be matters of local policy.

Working Group Summary

  The MPLS working group does solidly support this doucment, it 
  address wellknown interoperability problems. We had a good number
  of people supporting working group adoption and later (in the 
  working last call) supporting publication.

  The document has also been eorking group last called in IDR and
  bess, the support from these groups are also strong.

  There has been no controversies around this upfate of RFC 3107,
  the 

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 know of several implementations of RFC 3107, thus a very good
  understanding of the interoperability problems. We also know of 
  intents to implement the updated version. An implementation poll
  has been started, and as soon as we have new information this 
  Shepherd Write-up as soon as the inforamtion changes.

Personnel
 
  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 draft was first posted as draft-rosen-idr-rfc3107bis, this 
  draft was reviewed by idr, bess and mpls wg chairs and it was 
  decided to progress the document in the mpls working group.

  Next it was by the shepherd prior to the working group poll and 
  then once more before starting the the working group last call.

(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 needed.

(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 has stated on the mpls working group mailing
  that they are not aware of any IPRs that relates 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.

  There are 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?

  This is an update of a well implemented document, we have been 
  aware of the interop problems, and the wg fully support fixing 
  these problens.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The document has been carefully checked for nits, no issues found.
  The document passes the nits tool clean, with the exception that 
  a newer version of one of the informative reference has been posted.
  Normally we wait until the document is in the final states of the 
  RFC Editor work, before finally synch this.

(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 review required.

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

  Yes, the references are corretly split in normative and informative
  references.

(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?

(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. 

  All the normative references are to existing RFCs.

(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.

  This document will obsolete RFC 3107, this is listed on the front
  page, the abstract and 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).

  The IANA registry has been reviewed by the shepherd several times
  since the document was accepted as a working group document and 
  during working group last call.

  The IANA section is well and clearly written, and well aligned 
  with the rest of the document.

  There are no new IANA registries defined 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 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 such formal checks required.

Back