Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

          The MPLS WG request that 
                       Seamless MPLS Architecture

      is published as an Informational RFC.

(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 request that this document is published as an informational RFC.
   The document does not specify any protocol, just gives advice on 
   how already existing MPLS signaling protocol could be used to configure
   a seamless MPLS.
   Informational is the right type of RFC.
   The document header says "Informational"!

(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 documents describes an architecture which can be used to extend
   MPLS networks to integrate access and aggregation networks into a
   single MPLS domain ("Seamless MPLS").  The Seamless MPLS approach is
   based on existing and well known protocols.  It provides a highly
   flexible and a scalable architecture and the possibility to integrate
   100,000 of nodes.  The separation of the service and transport planes
   is one of the key elements; Seamless MPLS provides end to end service
   independent transport.  Therefore it removes the need for service
   specific configurations in network transport nodes (without end to
   end transport MPLS, some additional services nodes/configurations
   would be required to glue each transport domain).  This draft defines
   a routing architecture using existing standardized protocols.  It
   does not invent any new protocols or defines extensions to existing

Working Group Summary

  "Seamless MPLS" is generally accepted in the MPLS working group. It did
  originate with operators that have large MPLS networks and the uptake
  is very good among vendors. There are also a number of solutions drafts
  that will take this architecture as a starting point.
  There has been nothing in WG process outside the normal. However it might
   be good to read the IPR section below.

Document Quality

  There are networks that have been configured according to this architecture,ยจ
   however since this it an architecture document, there is strictly no 
   implementations. There will be protocol specifying documents that will define
   additions that is useful if you use this architecture, e.g. p2mp and load sharing
   (entropy labels) in seamless MPLS networks. There are large operators that
   uses this architecture and there are vendors that intend to implement the
   extensions useful for seamless MPLS networks. 
   There have been no  MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review of
   this document. 


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

   Loa Anderson 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 a comparatively long history, the individual document was
   posted in October 2009 and attracted  quite a bit of interest (maybe because it 
   originated from a major operator. The Shepherd (without know that he'd be the 
   future Shepherd)  reviewed and discussed the document on several occasions.
   The poll that made this a working group document was closed on May 12 2011.
   This was prior to we started the MPLS-RT and the shepherd reviewed the 
   document prior to starting the poll. The shepherd also reviewed the document
   during the wg process and once more for the 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 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 stated on the working group mailing list
   that they are not aware of any IPRs than those already disclosed.

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

   There are 3 IPRs filed against this document.
   One of those IPR disclosures were very late (filed 2008 and disclosed in 
   2013) one of the authors were listed as an inventor on that patent.
   This caused quite a bit of a mail discussion, that ended with an apology
   on the working group mailing list.

(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 consensus is very good!

(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 and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

   This document clears the nits tool clean, with the exception that there
   is a later version of one of the documents.

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

   No such reviews required. 

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

    Yes, the references are correctly split in 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?

   The only normative reference is to RFC 2119. 

(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 will be now status change for any document 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).

   There are not requests for IANA allocations in this document.

(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 automated reviews.