Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-10

The MPLS Working Group requests that

                   RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels
                    draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl

are 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?

  The document should be published as a Proposed Standard, it specifies
  protocoal and proceedures.

(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 extends the OAM procedures defined in RFC 8372 (for
   p2p and p2mp LSPs only), to include how to do Loss Measurment and
   Delay Measurement for the normal packet MPLS LSPs (mp2p). It also
   introduces a number of more sophisticated measurements that are
   applicable to p2p, p2mp and mp2p. The document addresses a
   number of problems that may lead to significant packet accounting
   problems, e.g. when the network uses ECMP.

Working Group Summary:

   The working group process has been smooth, it was unfortunately been
   delayed between the wglc and requesting publication, due to a
   misunderstanding where the authors and chairs were waiting and
   authors were waiting for eachother, and the state of the working
   group process were incorrectly captured in the in the data
   tracker.

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, YANG 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 currently do not know of impleentations, but we have sent out an
   implementtion poll and will update the shepherds write-up as soon as
   we get more information.

   On the other hand the discussion that took place during the
   development of this docuement revealed that at least 3-4 companies
   intend to implement.

   No MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review outside
   the working group is necesarry for this document.

Personnel:

   Deborah Brungard 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 discussion of Synonymous Flow Labels, the shepherd as been part
   the discussion all the time since it was first brought to the
   working group (actually I think that the document lead discussed
   this we the shepherd prior to posting of the first draft).

   The document shepherd has read every document version and
   commented when becessary.

(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 review 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?

   During the life of a draft the MPLS wg does two IPR polls, one
   at the adoption on the document as a working group document and
   one at wglc. All authors and contributors has stated that they
   are unaware of any other IPRs than those disclosed to the IETF.

(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 three (3) IPR disclosures against this docuemnt,
   existing IPR disclosures are beought to the notice of the
   working group at WGAP and WGLC. There have been no comments
   received. which traditionally is interpreted as that there
   are no concerns.

(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 extesion to MPLS that is widely understodd to
   be a good approach to meet operatro requirements. Given the
   general acceptance of the SFL approach the document becomes
   obvious. However, it is still necessary, for inter-operability
   reasons, to formally document exactly how SFLs are applied to
   RFC 6374. Hence there is a strong backing from all over the
   working group.

(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 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 tool clean.

   The document shepherd has no discovered any further nitss.

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

     No such reviews necessary.

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

    Yes, the references ae 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 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.

    All the normative referneces are to Standard Track 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.

   The publication of this document will not change the status the
   status of any other 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 8126).

   The IANA section is fairly simple, 4 new code point from two existing
   registries. The section has been reviewed continiously, in fact version
   -08 was triggered by shepherd comments on the IANA section.

(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.

   Mo 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, YANG modules, etc.

   No such automated reviews necessary

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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
RFC8342?

   The document does not contaim a YANG module.

Back