Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-mpls-rmr

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.

Back