Shepherd writeup
rfc7524-17

The MPLS working group requests that 

                     Inter-Area P2MP Segmented LSPs

                 draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-14.txt

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 want to start this document up on the Standards Track as a Proposes
   Standard.
   The document header says Standards Track.

   Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC, since the document specifies
   protocol, procedures and information 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 procedures for building inter-area P2MP
   segmented service LSPs by partitioning such LSPs
   into intra-area segments and using BGP as the inter-area routing and
   label distribution protocol. 

   Within each IGP area the intra-area segments are either carried over
   intra-area P2MP LSPs, using P2MP LSP hierarchy, or instantiated using 
   ingress replication.  

   The intra-area P2MP LSPs may be signaled using P2MP RSVP-TE (RFC 4875)
   or mLDP (RFC 63 88). If ingress replication is used within an IGP area, then
   LDP or RSVP-TE LSPs may be used. 

   BGP VPN Multicast, VPLS multicast, or global table multicast over MPLS are
  applications/services that may use such inter-LSPs.

Working Group Summary

  The WG process has been straightforward, there is a general agreement in the
   working group that support for multicast service is needed and that there are 
   synergies if we can use the the same method for multiple cases
   
   There have been no controversies around this draft and the support for this 
   document is good.

Document Quality

  We are currently aware of one implementation. 
  An implementation poll has been sent to the working group and the Shepherd 
  Write-up will be updated as soon as we have more information.

   There has been no other reviews than the MPLS-RT and WGLC, MIB Doctor, 
   Media Type or other expert reviews are not necessary for this document.


Personnel

   Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
   Adrian Farrel 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.

   This document has been part of the discussion around Seamless MPLS,
   the Shepherd has reviewed at least three times
   - when the (individual) document first appeared (this document were part of
     a larger discussion on "Seamless MPLS" and attracted quite an interest
    from the start
   - while preparing the preparing mpls-rt review and working group adoption
     poll
   - prior to and after working group last call.


(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 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
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.

   Yes - all authors has state on the MPLS wg mailing list that they are
   unaware of any other IPRs than what has been 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 is one IPR disclosed against this document, it was brought to the 
   working group attention at working group last call. The IPR disclosure did
   not generate any discussion during the wglc, the shepherd has interpreted 
   this as that the conditions related to the IPR is acceptable for the working 
   group.

   Note: This ID were going through the wg adoption poll in April 2011, prior to
   when we routinely started to do IPR polls prior to the wg adoption poll.
   The IPR was disclosed in April 2013.

(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 working group support 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.) 

(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.

   No real nits, the date in the document is given as "June 30 2014" while the
   nits toll expects "June 30, 2014" this generates 3 miscellaneous warnings.

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

   No such formal reviews required.

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

   Yes, the references are correctly split into normative and informative.into
   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?

   All normative references are to existing RFCs, with one exception. One
   normative references is to draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry, that draft is in 
   AUTH48 and is like to become an RFC prior to the IESG review of this 
   document.

(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 refernces.

(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 status of no other document will be change when this document is 
   publsihed.


(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 and code point allocations
   several times. The IANA section is clear and well written.

   However in the earlier version of the document the IANA section included
   addition of code points to a table specified in RFC 6514, but for which an 
   IANA registry never was created.

   The Shepherd in the early reviews assumed that since the allocation were
   mentioned in the IANA section it was requesting an IANA action. Having 
   understood the situation and after consulting with the responsible AD it was
   decided to hold this document and write the document that creates this 
   registry. The new document (draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry) is now in AUTH48 
   and this document correctly request a code point to be allocated form the 
   new registry.   

(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 needed.

Back