Shepherd writeup

   The MPLS working group request that

       Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for 
       Segment Routing Networks with MPLS Data-plane


   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?

   This document specifies protocol and protocol information 
   elements, it assigns IANA code points from registries and ranges
   there Standartds action is required. It also creates an IANA 
   registry there Standards Action is the allocation policy for one
   of the ranges. Code points are allocated from this range.

(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

   When segement routing uses the MPLS data plane nature or segment 
   assignment and forwarding semantic entails additional 
   considerations for connectivity verification and fault isolation.
   This document illustrates the problem that arises when LSP are 
   used with a Segment Routing architecture. The document also
   describe a mechanism to perform that allows normal  LSP Ping and 
   Traceroute opeations to be performed over Segment Routing network
   running over an MPLS data plane.

Working Group Summary

  The working group is solidly behind this document.

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 at least two implementations.
   We have also started an implementation poll on the MPLS wg 
   mailing list, as soon as further imformation is received we will
   update the write-up.

   No, Yang doctor, MIB doctor or other types of special reviews
   are necessary. The working group last call was announced on the
   SPRING wg mailing list.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

  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.

   This document has quite a history, in itself it is a merger of two
   documents, but the understanding that we would have to do some
   work on LSP Ping for SPRING controlled networks has been there 
   since the SPRING work started. The shepherd has been part of these
   discussions and also (as wg chair) promoted the merging of the 
   two documents. The shepherd has reviewed the documents when they
   were first published as individual document, monitored the merging
   process and reviewed the merged document as part of the working
   group adoption poll. The shepherd also reviewed the document as
   part of the wglc.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

   No such conserns.

(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. This is a well reviewed document and there is 
   working group consensus.

(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.

   The authors have all stated on the mailing list that they are 
   unaware of any IPRs that are relevant for this document. We have
   requested input on IPRs on the MPLS working mailing list.

(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. 

(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 fully 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.)

   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

   The draft passes the nits tools with a comment on code, which 
   seems not to be correct.

   There is also a "funny" reference, the first informative reference
   does have an odd format. One of the authors have opened a ticket 
   on this since the error seems to be in the  the XML bibliography.

   Nuber of authors, there are 6 authors listed for this document.
   The document is a merger of of two early individual document, of 
   which a least one resulted from discussins between two group with 
   similar ideas. 
   The merger resulted in a large number of co-authors, during the wg
   process this has been cut back to 6 -co-authors. After discussion 
   with the authors the shepherd is convinced that the 6 listed 
   authors have significantly contributed to the document, both 
   participating in discussion and contbuting text. We would 
   therefore like to have all the 6 co-authors listed on the front
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   No formal 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 

(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 but two normative references are to existing RFCs, of the 
   four, the two documents are spring wg drafts.

   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing is in AD evaluation.
   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls is in AD evaluation.

(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 refrences.

(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.

   Publication of this document will not change the status of any
   existing RFC.

(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 also requested/
   suggested necessary changes. The document create a new IANA (sub-)
   registry, the allocation policies are clearly defined. The 
   document include the intial contents for this registry.
   The name of the new registry will be "Protocol" registry and it 
   will be placed under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) 
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"

   Note to authors and chairs: Are we happy naming 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.

   The new registry does not require appointment of a experts.

(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.