Shepherd writeup
rfc8234-04

The MPLS Working Group requests that 

    Updates to MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection
            in Automatic Protection Switching (APS) Mode

               draft-ietf-mpls-tp-aps-updates

is published as a 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 request that the document is published as a Standard Track RFC
   since it updates RFC 7271 (another Standard Track RFC) and since
   it specifies new (earlier unspecified) necessary rules for the 
   initialization of the PSC Control Logic. Proposed Standard is the
   right type of RFC.

(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


   The document contains updates to MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
   linear protection in Automatic Protection Switching (APS) mode
   defined in RFC 7271.  The updates provide rules related to the
   initialization of the Protection State Coordination (PSC) Control
   Logic. When PSC operates in APS mode, the state machine is part of
   the control logic. The document also clarifies some operations
   related to state transition table lookup.

Working Group Summary

    The interest in MPLS-TP is slightly waning, however there is a
    rather strong group within the working group working on the last
    MPLS-TP documents. The MPLS WG is also committed to complete the
    MPLS-TP project. This document has been greatly improved in the
    reviews during the working group process.

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 a several vendors that intend to implement this 
     specification, we actually expect every implementor that did
     implement  RFC 7271 to implement.
     Several vendors have said that they will implement "as soon as it
     is an RFC".   

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

    Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.
    Deborah Brungard is the responsible AD.

(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 through a normal working group process, the
   level of review is good. 

(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 review 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 have stated on the MPLS WG
   mailing list that they are unaware of any undisclosed IPRs.

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

   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?

   As we said earlier the interest in MPLS-TP is somewhat waning, this
   does not mean that the working group support is low. The working 
   group is committed to complete the MPLS-TP project, and the 
   support for the document is 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 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 cleanly. There is a comment that 
  the abstract does not say directly that this document updates
  RFC 7271, but the first sentence in the abstract does say this.

(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 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 the normative references are to existing Standards Track RFCs.

(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. 

   There are no down refs in the document.

(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 publication 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).

   There are no IANA actions required by this documents.

(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 checks are necessary.
Back