The MPLS wg request that the
RFC6374 UDP Return Path
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?
-- The document header says "Standards Track".
-- Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC, since information elements and
procedures for an existing protocol for MPLS delay and Loss measurements
are specified (RFC 6374). It also assigns code points from a "Standards action"
(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:
-- The MPLS Packet Loss and Delay Measurement protocol is defined in RFC6374.
RFC 6374 defines how to send and process MPLS performance management
responses for Loss and Delay measurement.
This document specifies the procedure to be used when an out of band
UDP/IP return path is available,
Working Group Summary
-- There were nothing exceptional in the working group process other than
the the WG Chairs had to ask twice during the wglc to get any response at
all. I guess that this is one of those document that is of very strong interest
for a small group within the working group, while the rest of the working
understands that it need to be done, being happy that someone takes on the
-- We currently are aware of prototyping, as well as plans to any implement
this specification, we have an ongoing implementation poll and the write-up
will be updated if and when we get further news.
There should be implementations since we made early allocations based
on upcoming testing.
-- No special purpose reviews has been necessary.
-- The document is well reviewed in mpls-rt and at working adoption
poll, even though the wglc gave nothing but supportive comments.
-- Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
-- Deborah Brungrad 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 document shepherd has reviewed the document when it was first posted,
when the document were prepared for working group adoption, and when the
wglc were prepared. Nothing more than nits were found. A final partial review
is done as the write-up is written.
-- The document shepherd is convinced that the document is ready for
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
-- No such concerns - the document is pretty straightforward and the key
people has reviewed it.
(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
-- 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
-- No such concerns or issues.
(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 stated on the working group mailing list that they
are unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.
-- However the acknowledgement section says:
"We acknowledge the contribution of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi,
both with Cisco Systems. "
The operative word is "contribution", my interpretation is that "contribution"
translates to "supplying or heavily impacting" text in the document.
We have earlier tried to include people acknowledged for "contributions"
in the IPR poll, but have a strong push back. If the IESG (or responsible AD
thinks it is appropriate I will re-issue the the IPR poll directed specifically
to the two "contributors".
Please note that we asked both them at working group adoption poll and
got a response from one of them. The second "contributor" has to the best of
my knowledge not responded to any of the IPR polls.
Since no IPRs has been disclosed for this document, the opinion of the
document shepherd is that we don't need more polls on IPRs 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
-- There are no IPR disclosures against this document or its predecessors.
(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 group that are really interested to progress this draft is only a
part of the working group. Within this group there is a solid
consensus. The rest of the working group understand and agree that this
specification is needed, but is not taking active part.
(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
-- There is a discussion whether we should use IP/UDP or UDP/IP, no other
nits founds. We have converged on UDP/IP.
-- There is a [This] on line 293 that the nits tool interpret as a missing
reference, but it is not.
-- There is also a mis-alignment between "headings" and table content
in the IANA section, this should be easily fixed before publishing.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
-- Yes - the split is correctly done.
(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.
(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.
-- There are no RFCs for which the status will be changed when publishing
(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 only action required by IANA is to make an early allocation permanent.
Register and sub-register are clearly pointed out.
(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 reviews necessary.