Resilient MPLS Rings
draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-14

The authors need to respond to Dir reviews and revise the document. After many pings to the authors and the promise to do, there has been no progress.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-11-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: mpls@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Loa Andersson , draft-ietf-mpls-rmr@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Resilient MPLS Rings) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Resilient MPLS Rings'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-11-05. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the use of the MPLS control and data planes
  on ring topologies.  It describes the special nature of rings, and
  proceeds to show how MPLS can be effectively used in such topologies.
  It describes how MPLS rings are configured, auto-discovered and
  signaled, as well as how the data plane works.  Companion documents
  describe the details of discovery and signaling for specific
  protocols.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rmr/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rmr/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2661/

The MPLS Working Group request that

      draft-ietf-mpls-rmr
    Resilient MPLS Rings

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 should be published as a Proposed Standard.

  Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC since the document
  specifies both protocol procedures and protocal elements.

(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 describes the use of the MPLS control and data planes
  for MPLS ring topologies.  It describes the special nature of MPLS
  rings, and show how MPLS LSRs can be effectively used creating such
  topologies.
 
  It describes how MPLS rings are configured, auto-discovered and
  signaled, as well as how the data plane works.

  There are several companion documents in progress that will describe
  protocol specific details of discovery and signaling for each
  protocol.

Working Group Summary

  No such controversies, the working group support this document.

Document Quality

  Currently we  know of a prototype implementation of the ideas in this
  document.  The prototype covers configuration and management of
  MPLS rings, the basic ring discovery algorithm, ring announcements
  in IS-IS, signaling with RSVP-TE and LDP and data plane operations
  of basic forwarding and protection.
  An implementation poll has been started. The Shepherd Erite-Up will
  be updated as soon as we have further news.

  There is a significant interest both from vendors to impplement
  and from operators to deploy this specification.


Personnel

  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 SHepherd/WG Chair has followed this document in detail ever
  since it was first posted as an individual document, with
  comprehensible reviews at working adoption, working groujp last call
  and when writing the Shepherd Write-Up.

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

  No such concerns. Between the reviews by Huub van Helvoort, Tarek
  Saad, Susanne hares, the shepherd reviews and the discussion on
  the mailing list and at f2f meeting, this document is very well
  reviewed.
   
(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 reviewa nwcessary.

(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 confirmed that all IPRs realting to this document
  that they are aware of has been appropriatedly disclosed.

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

  There is one IPR disclosed against this document. The working group
  has been made aware of this both at wgap and wglc. Tere has been
  no discussion on the IPR, which the wg chairs takes to mean that the
  conditions relating to the IPR is satisfactory.

(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?

  There is a wide spread support for 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  Then ID nits to points at two things:
  - it says that the the abbtreviatiion "RID" is a missing reference,
    this is a mistake by the nits tool
  - the nits tool also points out an outdated reference
    "draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis has been published as RFC 8029", the
    authors will be asked to update this as soon as a new version of
    the document is needed.

(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?

  The references are correctly split into 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?

There is only one normative refrence BCP14.


(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.

  When this document is published no other documents will be changed.


(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).

  This document does no requests for IANA allocations.

(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 such 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 automated checks required.

The MPLS Working Group request that

      draft-ietf-mpls-rmr
    Resilient MPLS Rings

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 should be published as a Proposed Standard.

  Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC since the document
  specifies both protocol procedures and protocal elements.

(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 describes the use of the MPLS control and data planes
  for MPLS ring topologies.  It describes the special nature of MPLS
  rings, and show how MPLS LSRs can be effectively used creating such
  topologies.
 
  It describes how MPLS rings are configured, auto-discovered and
  signaled, as well as how the data plane works.

  There are several companion documents in progress that will describe
  protocol specific details of discovery and signaling for each
  protocol.

Working Group Summary

  No such controversies, the working group support this document.

Document Quality

  Currently we  know of a prototype implementation of the ideas in this
  document.  The prototype covers configuration and management of
  MPLS rings, the basic ring discovery algorithm, ring announcements
  in IS-IS, signaling with RSVP-TE and LDP and data plane operations
  of basic forwarding and protection.
  An implementation poll has been started. The Shepherd Erite-Up will
  be updated as soon as we have further news.

  There is a significant interest both from vendors to impplement
  and from operators to deploy this specification.


Personnel

  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 SHepherd/WG Chair has followed this document in detail ever
  since it was first posted as an individual document, with
  comprehensible reviews at working adoption, working groujp last call
  and when writing the Shepherd Write-Up.

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

  No such concerns. Between the reviews by Huub van Helvoort, Tarek
  Saad, Susanne hares, the shepherd reviews and the discussion on
  the mailing list and at f2f meeting, this document is very well
  reviewed.
   
(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 reviewa nwcessary.

(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 confirmed that all IPRs realting to this document
  that they are aware of has been appropriatedly disclosed.

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

  There is one IPR disclosed against this document. The working group
  has been made aware of this both at wgap and wglc. Tere has been
  no discussion on the IPR, which the wg chairs takes to mean that the
  conditions relating to the IPR is satisfactory.

(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?

  There is a wide spread support for 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  Then ID nits to points at two things:
  - it says that the the abbtreviatiion "RID" is a missing reference,
    this is a mistake by the nits tool
  - the nits tool also points out an outdated reference
    "draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis has been published as RFC 8029", the
    authors will be asked to update this as soon as a new version of
    the document is needed.

(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?

  The references are correctly split into 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?

There is only one normative refrence BCP14.


(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.

  When this document is published no other documents will be changed.


(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).

  This document does no requests for IANA allocations.

(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 such 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 automated checks required.

The MPLS Working Group request that

      draft-ietf-mpls-rmr
    Resilient MPLS Rings

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 should be published as a Proposed Standard.

  Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC since the document
  specifies both protocol procedures and protocal elements.

(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 describes the use of the MPLS control and data planes
  for MPLS ring topologies.  It describes the special nature of MPLS
  rings, and show how MPLS LSRs can be effectively used creating such
  topologies.
 
  It describes how MPLS rings are configured, auto-discovered and
  signaled, as well as how the data plane works.

  There are several companion documents in progress that will describe
  protocol specific details of discovery and signaling for each
  protocol.

Working Group Summary

  No such controversies, the working group support this document.

Document Quality

  Currently we  of a prototype implementation of the ideas in this
  document.  The prototype covers configuration and management of
  MPLS rings, the basic ring discovery algorithm, ring announcements
  in IS-IS, signaling with RSVP-TE and LDP and data plane operations
  of basic forwarding and protection.
  An implementation poll has been started. The Shepherd Erite-Up will
  be updated as soon as we have further news.

  There is a significant interest both from vendors to impplement
  and from operators to deploy this specification.


Personnel

  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 SHepherd/WG Chair has followed this document in detail ever
  since it was first posted as an individual document, with
  comprehensible reviews at working adoption, working groujp last call
  and when writing the Shepherd Write-Up.

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

  No such concerns. Between the reviews by Huub van Helvoort, Tarek
  Saad, Susanne hares, the shepherd reviews and the discussion on
  the mailing list and at f2f meeting, this document is very well
  reviewed.
   
(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 reviewa nwcessary.

(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 confirmed that all IPRs realting to this document
  that they are aware of has been appropriatedly disclosed.

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

  There is one IPR disclosed against this document. The working group
  has been made aware of this both at wgap and wglc. Tere has been
  no discussion on the IPR, which the wg chairs takes to mean that the
  conditions relating to the IPR is satisfactory.

(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?

  There is a wide spread support for 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  Then ID nits to points at two things:
  - it says that the the abbtreviatiion "RID" is a missing reference,
    this is a mistake by the nits tool
  - the nits tool also points out an outdated reference
    "draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis has been published as RFC 8029", the
    authors will be asked to update this as soon as a new version of
    the document is needed.

(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?

  The references are correctly split into 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?

There is only one normative refrence BCP14.


(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.

  When this document is published no other documents will be changed.


(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).

  This document does no requests for IANA allocations.

(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 such 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 automated checks required.