Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-07

The MPLS working group request that '

    draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels

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?

   We are requesting that the document is published as Proposed
   Standard.
   This is the proper type of RFC since if defines new protocol
   elements, new procedures and allocate IANA code points from 

(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

   As MPLS RSVP-TE networks grows, so does the number of LSPs 
   supported by network elements.  Various implementation 
   recommendations have been proposed to manage the resulting 
   increase in control plane state.

   The recommendations proposed to manage control plane state, have 
   had no effect on the number of labels in the forwarding plane
   necessary for an LSR to support.

   This document defines a mechanism that prevent the maximum number
   an LSR may support to be a limitation on control plane scaling on
   the LSR.  The concept of pre-installed 'per TE) link labels' that
   can be shared by MPLS RSVP-TE LSPs.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
  example, was there controversy about particular points or 
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
  rough?

   No such controversies. The WG process has been very 
   straightforward.

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 implementation plans and implementations, this was the
   reason to allocate some of the code points by early allocation.
   However we have no detailed information. We have started an
   implementation poll and will update the Write-Up when we receive
   more information.

   No expert reviews necessary.

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 Document Shepherd (also wg chair), reviewed the document at
   the normal way points of the document, when it was first posted,
   when we did the working group adoption poll, when preparing the 
   working group last call and when writing the shepherds write-up.

   This version is ready for publication.

(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 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.

   All the authors and contributors has confirmed that they are 
   unaware of any other IPR that relates to this document than those
   that have been disclosed.

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

   The IPR tool lists 5 IPRs against this document, however 2 of them
   are updates of IPRs disclosed against the individual document when
   it became a working group document.

   The working group were notified about all IPRs at the adoption
   poll and wglc. There has been no concerns at all.

(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 very solid support for this specification. 

(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 passes the nits tool clean, there is one case of a 
   newer version of an ID, that is referenced.

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

   Np such reviews necessary.

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

   Yes the references are correctly split into 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 of the 8 normative references are to existing RFCs, 6 of them
   to PS and the other two BCPs.

(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.

   No other document will have its status changed when this document
   is published.


(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 Shepherd has reviewed the IANA section as it has developed.
   All referenced IANA registries are clearly identifiable, early 
   IANA allocations are included in the IANA section.
   One new sub-registry is defined (section 1.3) the allocation policy
   is clearly defined. 

(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 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 reviews necessary.

Back