The MPLS working group requests that
"Entropy label for SPRING tunnels"
is published as an RFC on the standards track (see note under question 1).
(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 publication as an RFC on the standards track.
Note: When we first requested publication, this was for an Informational
RFC. This was based on a very early decision on the type of RFC we
However, the RTG Dir and AD review converged on that this
should be an RFC on the standards track.
The working group has been polled, and agree that standards track
(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:
This document describes how entropy labels (EL) may be used with
Segment Routing running over an MPLS data plane.
Entropy labels (EL) is a technique used in MPLS to improve load-balancing.
Segment Routing (SR) is a technique that uses a source routing paradigm.
A node (LSR) steers a packets through an ordered list of instructions, called
Working Group Summary
There has been no controversies over this document, the working
group understands that key technologies like entropy labels need
to be made working also when LSPs are set up using the segement
routing paradigm. The processing has been somewhat slow, and
there were a long time, mostly depending on that some of the
authors were changing affiliations, between a first wglc and that
the document was updated. The working group decided, because
of the time elapsed to run a second wglc. This second wglc did not
receive anything but supportive comments.
This document has 6 authors listed. The reason is that all six authors
have substantially contributed text and ideas to the document. The
number of authors has been discussed at leas twice as the document
as the document has progressed. First then we adopted the draft as a
working group document. The outcome of this discussion were that we
should revisit it before we did go to wglc.
The discussion prior to wglc led to that we moved two people to
contributors. The discussion involved working group chairs, ADs
and authors. After a discussion on the mpls list and reviewing what
each of the authors contributed we were convinced that it would be
correct to list six authors on the front page. This is the shared
opinion between ADs, wg chairs and authors.
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 currently have no hard information on existing implementations. An
implementation poll has been sent to the working group mailing list, this write-up
will be updated as soon as the implementation poll yields information.
A significant number or vendors and service providers has expressed interest in
No special type of review is necessary, it has been working group last called both in
MPLS and SPRING working groups.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Loa Anderson 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 working group chair / document shepherd review is pretty straightforward
- the document was reviewed when it was first posted, some small comments sent
to the authors
- the document was reviewed a second time as preparation for the MPLS-RT
review and working group adoption poll
- the document was read a third time when we discussed the use of 2119 language
in an Informational document; the working agreed that the document should be
be on the standards track
(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
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
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 author have confirmed on the working group mailing list
that they are unaware of any IPRs relating to this document..
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There are no IPR disclosures against this document.
However, there is a small caveat where one possible solution on how
to introduce the EL into the label stack. A single EL at the bottom of
stack described in section 10.1, this technology has a relevant IPR.
For the purpose of this document, the single EL at the bottom of the
label stack was rejected, the working group found that it was unnecessary
to disclose this IPR (at least against this document).
(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?
This is one of the things that MPLS and SPRING working groups
agree needs to be specified for SPRING specified segment routing
to work over an MPLS data plane.
(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
The shepherd has not found any such nits, and the document passes
the nits tool clean.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review necessary.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes all 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?
There are two normative references to work in progress:
However, for both of these documents publication has been requested.
(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 no changes of the status or any other document on
publication of draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label.
(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 no IANA considerations 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 new IANA 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 automated checks required.