MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Next-Hop Ethernet Addressing
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-08

(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?


  The MPLS working group request that:

            MPLS-TP Next-Hop Ethernet Addressing
          draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-04

  is published as an RFC on the standards track.

This is a standard track document because it is a protocol
specification.




(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 presents considerations for link-layer addressing
of Ethernet frames carrying MPLS-TP packets.

The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction
and operation of packet-switched transport networks. 



    Working Group Summary:

    Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
    example, was there controversy about particular points or were
    there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There is good support in the working group for this draft. There
were no significant controversies in progression of the document.
Last call comments were constructive technical comments and the
document has been updated accordingly.


    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 intentions to implement this protocol. Since is carried
over the "MPLS G-ACh Advertisement Protocol", most implementers are
in waiting mode for the assignemnt of the ACh type for that protocol.

    Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd?

Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.

    Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel 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.

The document shepherd reviewed the document at the point in time
when it was being polled to become a working group document and again
as a part of the preparation for the working group last call. The
draft has also been reviewed a number of times (partially or the
entire draft) after the working group last call was completed.
The IANA section has been reviewed several times.

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

No such concerns, the document has been thorugh working group last
call and comments has been solicited from SG15 in the ITU-T..

    (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.

The document shepherd believes that the current level of review is
sufficient.

    (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?

A poll for IPRs has been done among the authors and in the working
group.
All the authors has confirmed that they are not aware of any existing
IPR claims.
There are no IPT´R claims against this document.


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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on this draft.

    (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?

There are good support for 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

This document passes the ID-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 such formal review requirements!

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

Yes.

    (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?

With the exception of "draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv" all normative
references are 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 is a downward references to RFC 2469 "A Caution On The
Canonical Ordering Of Link-Layer Addresses".

    (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.

This document does not change the status of any other document.

    (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).

This document has a clear and well-written IANA section.

Note: In section 6.2 this document requests that a code point is
      allocated for  allocate a new Application ID in the "G-ACh
      Advertisement Protocol Applications" registry
      [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] (currently located in the
      "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)").
      Strictly this registry is in the process of being set up;
      the MPLS working group has requested publication of
      [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv].



    (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.

This document creates one new IANA registry, the allocation policiy
is "IETF Review".

    (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 review required.

[Ballot comment]
No objection to the publication of this document, but please address the two points below.
Note: I discussed those points with Stewart, and we agreed that the text needs to be improved.

1.
There are 2 SHOULD in the following paragraphs:
  ...
  If existing mechanisms are available in an MPLS-TP network to
  determine the destination unicast MAC addresses of peer nodes -- for
  example, if the network also happens to be an IP/MPLS network, or if
  Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [LLDP] is in use, or if it
  implements the procedures in Section 4 of this document -- such
  mechanisms SHOULD be used.  The remainder of this section discusses
  the available options when this is not the case.

  ...
  In view of the above considerations, the approach which SHOULD be
  used, is therefore to configure both nodes to use the method
  described in this document which uses, as a destination MAC address,
  an Ethernet multicast address reserved for MPLS-TP for use over
  point-to-point links.

If I have ARP or LLDP, the first SHOULD apply. However, there is also a SHOULD for the new mechanism in this document. So which method should I use as a default?

Discussing with Stewart, the authors should make it clear that 
1. If ARP/LLDP is/are available, they are the preferred methods
2. If ARP/LLDP is/are not available, rather than using the hand configured unicast or the broadcast address mechanisms, use the 01-00-5E-90-00-00 mechanism

2.
Manageability Considerations

Because this mechanism proposed in this document relies on point-to-point interfaces only, you're missing that the interface type, whether point-to-point or multi-point, must be clearly labeled, and this information must be available to the network operator. Any changes of interface type must be notified to the network operator.
See my next email to the OPS-DIR on this topic.

[Ballot comment]
(Updated to a comment, based on feedback.)

A new Gen-ART review recently arrived on this document. Can the authors, shepherds, or sponsoring ADs take a look and see if there is something that you think should be addressed? The review is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg08439.html and also copied below.

Also, regarding the S7.3 comment, we do often use IANA policies of the form " or IESG Approval", because it allows an IESG approval for the eventual special case. I would consider this model for this document as well.

-------

Martin Thomson's Gen-ART review:

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as proposed
standard.  There are some minor issues

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

The structure of the document is odd.  The individual pieces of
explanation are good, it's just that different bits are revealed in a
strange order.  If the intent is to describe a method of selecting an
Ethernet address to attach to MPLS-TP packets, I would have thought
that structuring the document to correspond to the prioritization of
methods would make sense.  That is, from what I can infer:
If unicast, use a unicast address (MUST for multipoint attachment,
SHOULD for others)
1. from G-ACh, if available
2. from static configuration, if operationally feasible
otherwise, for point-to-point links you can use
3. the IANA-assigned special address
4. FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF
Reordering might help with understanding the process.

If multicast/broadcast LSPs, there doesn't seem to be any actual
recommendations or advice in the document.  There is only an
admonition to use encapsulation, which is probably necessary for other
reasons anyhow.  So it's not clear how Section 3, paragraph 1 is
relevant to this document.  It doesn't offer any guidance on how one
might select an appropriate Ethernet address for those frames.
Presumably these could be unicast, multicast or broadcast depending on
routing requirements for the LSP, in which case maybe there is no good
advice to give. If there really is no good advice to give, or there is
no intent to provide advice for multicast/broadcast LSPs, a statement
to that effect would be helpful.

Section 3, Paragraph 2 just reiterates parts of Section 2, it could be removed.

S5: I can't reconcile "The advertised information SHOULD be persistent
across restarts."  with "Received advertisements MUST be discarded
across restarts."

S4, pp5: Why force a mapping to EUI-64?  Is canonicalization important
for some reason?

S4, pp5: The paragraph beginning with "In the event a GAP message is
not received within the previously received associated Lifetime, ..."
is a little confusing (and I'm familiar with G-ACh already).  This
could be clearer.  Maybe:  "A node could cease transmission of G-ACh
advertisements, or cease to include a Source MAC Address TLV in
advertisements, either of which cause the TLV lifetime to elapse.
After the Source MAC Address TLV lifetime has elapsed, this value
SHOULD no longer be used to select a MAC address; the node SHOULD
return to selecting MAC addresses as though no advertisements were
received."

S7.3: IETF review is a pretty high bar.  (Sadly, I missed this on
G-ACh, or I would have made the same comment.)  Did you consider
allowing IESG Approval as an alternative?


Nits/editorial comments:
There are a couple of lowercase instances of RFC2119 keywords that
could be confusing.  The very last line of S4, the second last
sentence of S2.  Consider alternative wordings for these statements.

S2, pp3: s/i.e.  /i.e., /

[Ballot comment]
(Updated to a comment, based on feedback.)

A new Gen-ART review recently arrived on this document. Can the authors, shepherds, or sponsoring ADs take a look and see if there is something that you think should be addressed?

Martin Thomson's Gen-ART review:

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as proposed
standard.  There are some minor issues

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

The structure of the document is odd.  The individual pieces of
explanation are good, it's just that different bits are revealed in a
strange order.  If the intent is to describe a method of selecting an
Ethernet address to attach to MPLS-TP packets, I would have thought
that structuring the document to correspond to the prioritization of
methods would make sense.  That is, from what I can infer:
If unicast, use a unicast address (MUST for multipoint attachment,
SHOULD for others)
1. from G-ACh, if available
2. from static configuration, if operationally feasible
otherwise, for point-to-point links you can use
3. the IANA-assigned special address
4. FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF
Reordering might help with understanding the process.

If multicast/broadcast LSPs, there doesn't seem to be any actual
recommendations or advice in the document.  There is only an
admonition to use encapsulation, which is probably necessary for other
reasons anyhow.  So it's not clear how Section 3, paragraph 1 is
relevant to this document.  It doesn't offer any guidance on how one
might select an appropriate Ethernet address for those frames.
Presumably these could be unicast, multicast or broadcast depending on
routing requirements for the LSP, in which case maybe there is no good
advice to give. If there really is no good advice to give, or there is
no intent to provide advice for multicast/broadcast LSPs, a statement
to that effect would be helpful.

Section 3, Paragraph 2 just reiterates parts of Section 2, it could be removed.

S5: I can't reconcile "The advertised information SHOULD be persistent
across restarts."  with "Received advertisements MUST be discarded
across restarts."

S4, pp5: Why force a mapping to EUI-64?  Is canonicalization important
for some reason?

S4, pp5: The paragraph beginning with "In the event a GAP message is
not received within the previously received associated Lifetime, ..."
is a little confusing (and I'm familiar with G-ACh already).  This
could be clearer.  Maybe:  "A node could cease transmission of G-ACh
advertisements, or cease to include a Source MAC Address TLV in
advertisements, either of which cause the TLV lifetime to elapse.
After the Source MAC Address TLV lifetime has elapsed, this value
SHOULD no longer be used to select a MAC address; the node SHOULD
return to selecting MAC addresses as though no advertisements were
received."

S7.3: IETF review is a pretty high bar.  (Sadly, I missed this on
G-ACh, or I would have made the same comment.)  Did you consider
allowing IESG Approval as an alternative?


Nits/editorial comments:
There are a couple of lowercase instances of RFC2119 keywords that
could be confusing.  The very last line of S4, the second last
sentence of S2.  Consider alternative wordings for these statements.

S2, pp3: s/i.e.  /i.e., /

[Ballot discuss]
A new Gen-ART review recently arrived on this document. Can the authors, shepherds, or sponsoring ADs take a look and see if there is something that you think should be addressed?

[Ballot comment]
Martin Thomson's Gen-ART review:

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as proposed
standard.  There are some minor issues

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

The structure of the document is odd.  The individual pieces of
explanation are good, it's just that different bits are revealed in a
strange order.  If the intent is to describe a method of selecting an
Ethernet address to attach to MPLS-TP packets, I would have thought
that structuring the document to correspond to the prioritization of
methods would make sense.  That is, from what I can infer:
If unicast, use a unicast address (MUST for multipoint attachment,
SHOULD for others)
1. from G-ACh, if available
2. from static configuration, if operationally feasible
otherwise, for point-to-point links you can use
3. the IANA-assigned special address
4. FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF
Reordering might help with understanding the process.

If multicast/broadcast LSPs, there doesn't seem to be any actual
recommendations or advice in the document.  There is only an
admonition to use encapsulation, which is probably necessary for other
reasons anyhow.  So it's not clear how Section 3, paragraph 1 is
relevant to this document.  It doesn't offer any guidance on how one
might select an appropriate Ethernet address for those frames.
Presumably these could be unicast, multicast or broadcast depending on
routing requirements for the LSP, in which case maybe there is no good
advice to give. If there really is no good advice to give, or there is
no intent to provide advice for multicast/broadcast LSPs, a statement
to that effect would be helpful.

Section 3, Paragraph 2 just reiterates parts of Section 2, it could be removed.

S5: I can't reconcile "The advertised information SHOULD be persistent
across restarts."  with "Received advertisements MUST be discarded
across restarts."

S4, pp5: Why force a mapping to EUI-64?  Is canonicalization important
for some reason?

S4, pp5: The paragraph beginning with "In the event a GAP message is
not received within the previously received associated Lifetime, ..."
is a little confusing (and I'm familiar with G-ACh already).  This
could be clearer.  Maybe:  "A node could cease transmission of G-ACh
advertisements, or cease to include a Source MAC Address TLV in
advertisements, either of which cause the TLV lifetime to elapse.
After the Source MAC Address TLV lifetime has elapsed, this value
SHOULD no longer be used to select a MAC address; the node SHOULD
return to selecting MAC addresses as though no advertisements were
received."

S7.3: IETF review is a pretty high bar.  (Sadly, I missed this on
G-ACh, or I would have made the same comment.)  Did you consider
allowing IESG Approval as an alternative?


Nits/editorial comments:
There are a couple of lowercase instances of RFC2119 keywords that
could be confusing.  The very last line of S4, the second last
sentence of S2.  Consider alternative wordings for these statements.

S2, pp3: s/i.e.  /i.e., /

[Ballot comment]
I would observe that you should never use garp or ndp  messages for 01-00-5E-90-00-00 to update an L2 next hop which gets back to the question of what is or isn't point to point.

I don't know that, that observation needs to make it into the text so no objection.

[Ballot comment]

- section 2, 2nd last para on p3: I'm not clear whether an
implementation MUST process frames sent to 01-00-5e-90-00-00
if the implementation doesn't know that the link is
point-to-point or knows that the link is not point-to-point.
You could also maybe be clearer about what "MUST process"
means, not sure if that's obvious or not (maybe it is), but
if I send a huge chunk of garbage bytes to that MAC address,
would all be well? Maybe such fuzzing would also be worth a
security consideration? (Not sure, maybe that's covered
elsewhere or ought be covered elsewhere.)

- section 4, is "maximum frame size octets" a typo? Maybe "in
octets" was meant?

- section 4, MFS == 2^32-1 seems very big. Is there a
potential DoS vector there? Maybe a bad node could set this
huge to try get the peer to buffer too much stuff or
something? Ought implementatations also have their own
max-max value or generate an alert or something if a too-big
MFS is received? You already mention a too-small MFS in the
security considerations, so maybe this is also worth a
mention?

- section 6: I'm not sure of the real use-cases for this, but
are there cases where you really really ought to be turning
on the authentication defined in mpls-gach-adv? If there
are, wouldn't it be good to describe those a bit and say
that they do really need to use the crypto stuff?

[Ballot comment]
Just a couple of editorial nit-picks...

1. I don't think I have ever heard of "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)".  Since ARP works on links other than Ethernet, I would suggest dropping reference to Ethernet.  This standardizes the description of ARP in the same way NDP is described.

2. The references [EUI-64] and [LLDP] have all sorts of extraneous punctuation that can be cleaned up.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-05.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the IANA Multicast 48-bit MAC Address subregistry of the Ethernet Numbers registry located at:

www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers/ethernet-numbers.xml

the address 90-00-00 is currently pre-assigned to MPLS-TP p2p. Upon approval of this document, we will change the reference for this registration to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, we understand that the current document requests a registration in a registry yet to be created. This registration is to be in a future registry proposed to be created by [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv].  We further understand that when [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] is approved, the current document requests a new registration in the "G-ACh Advertisement Protocol Applications" registry as follows:

Application ID Description Reference
--------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------
TBD to be assigned by IANA Ethernet Interface [ RFC-to-be ]
Parameters

Third, we understand that a new registry is to be created called the "G-ACh Advertisement Protocol: Ethernet Interface Parameters" within the "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)" registry. The range of the Type ID field is 0 - 255. Maintenance for this new subregistry is to be through IETF Review as documented in RFC 5266.

There are initial registrations in the new registry, as follows:

Type Name Type ID Reference
------------------ ------- --------------
Source MAC Address 0 [ RFC-to-be ]
MTU 1 [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (MPLS-TP Next-Hop Ethernet Addressing) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS-TP Next-Hop Ethernet Addressing'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
  is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction
  and operation of packet-switched transport networks.  This document
  presents considerations for link-layer addressing of Ethernet frames
  carrying MPLS-TP packets.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

This document contains a downward reference to RFC 2469 "A Caution On The Canonical Ordering Of Link-Layer Addresses".

AD review
=========
Hi,

I have conducted my usual AD review of your document as part of the
publication request processing. The aim of my review is to catch any
issues that might show up in IETF last call, directorate reviews, or
IESG evaluation. The intent is to resolve the issues by text changes
or through email discussion to smooth the passage of the document
through the later stages of the process.

I have reviewed this document jointly with draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv
and since the author team is the same for the two documents, I
recommend that you process the comments for the two documents at the
same time.

As usual, all my comments are open for disagreement and discussion. I
think that you will probably want to produce a revision of this
document to address my comments, so I have put it into "Revised I-D
Needed" state in the data tracker.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

===

The abbreviations GAL and OAM are not used in the document and can be
removed from Section 1.1.

---

Am I missing something? Why do you only support 48-bit MAC addresses?

---

I am *really* surprised that this document does not mention LLDP. In
[I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] you state...

  Where
  it is anticipated that the sole purpose of the GAP will be to provide
  Ethernet MAC address learning, the use of LLDP SHOULD be considered.

So this document needs to say the same thing (all over and in 18pt red
bold). Furthermore, it needs to define what "HOULD" means in this
context.

---

In Section 4...

Could you please identify (with TBD1 - to be assigned by IANA) the
application ID of the new "Ethernet Interface Parameters" application.

Could you please state: "The format of the TLVs is as defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv].

Could you please include the type values for the two TLVs you are
defining (so that people don't have to look ahead to the IANA section).

Since the two TLVs you are defining have predictable lengths, it would
be nice if you included the specific length values to be used.

---

I think section 4 is missing something. It is clear from
[I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] that at least one TLV must be present in the
Ethernet Interface Parameters" ADB element. Is there a requirement that
the Source MAC Address TLV is always present? What are the rules for
multiple occurrences of either of the TLVs you have defined?
               
---

Somewhere, probably Section 4, should leverage the stated intention in
[ID.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] by stating that the values received in the new
ADB element SHOULD (or probably MUST) be made accessible for inspection
by network operators, and where local configuration is updated by the
received information, it MUST be clear why the configured value has
been changed. Furthermore, you probably need to discuss whether
information learned in this way is allowed to be persistent across
node or interface discontinuities. (The last point suggests to me that
you might want to include a brief section on handling changes in
adjacent MAC addresses - a point that you have given as a motivation
for the work.)

---

In my comments on [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] I ask about the consequences
of message loss. This issue seems to apply to this document so,
depending on how you handle the issue in [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] you
may need to add something to this document.

---

Section 5 should reference [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] for the security
properties of the GAP. It should probably note that an effective
attack is modifying the Source MAC Address value, while modifying the
MTU value may also have significant consequences. Furthermore, it may
be the case that visibility into the contents of either of the TLVs
could provide information that is useful for an attacker.

---

In section 6.1, please include an IANA action to update the reference
for the MAC address to point to the RFC number assigned to this
document on publication.

---

In section 6.2, could you please replace 0x0001 with TBD1.

---

Trivial point, but there are precisely three authors, all marked as
editors. You could safely dispense with the "editor" designation (on
the front page and in the Authors' Addresses section).

(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?


  The MPLS working group request that:

            MPLS-TP Next-Hop Ethernet Addressing
          draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-04

  is published as an RFC on the standards track.

This is a standard track document because it is a protocol
specification.




(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 presents considerations for link-layer addressing
of Ethernet frames carrying MPLS-TP packets.

The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction
and operation of packet-switched transport networks. 



    Working Group Summary:

    Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
    example, was there controversy about particular points or were
    there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There is good support in the working group for this draft. There
were no significant controversies in progression of the document.
Last call comments were constructive technical comments and the
document has been updated accordingly.


    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 intentions to implement this protocol. Since is carried
over the "MPLS G-ACh Advertisement Protocol", most implementers are
in waiting mode for the assignemnt of the ACh type for that protocol.

    Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd?

Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.

    Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel 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.

The document shepherd reviewed the document at the point in time
when it was being polled to become a working group document and again
as a part of the preparation for the working group last call. The
draft has also been reviewed a number of times (partially or the
entire draft) after the working group last call was completed.
The IANA section has been reviewed several times.

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

No such concerns, the document has been thorugh working group last
call and comments has been solicited from SG15 in the ITU-T..

    (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.

The document shepherd believes that the current level of review is
sufficient.

    (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?

A poll for IPRs has been done among the authors and in the working
group.
All the authors has confirmed that they are not aware of any existing
IPR claims.
There are no IPT?R claims against this document.


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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on this draft.

    (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?

There are good support for 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

This document passes the ID-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 such formal review requirements!

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

Yes.

    (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?

With the exception of "draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv" all normative
references are 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 is a downward references to RFC 2469 "A Caution On The
Canonical Ordering Of Link-Layer Addresses".

    (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.

This document does not change the status of any other document.

    (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).

This document has a clear and well-written IANA section.

Note: In section 6.2 this document requests that a code point is
      allocated for  allocate a new Application ID in the "G-ACh
      Advertisement Protocol Applications" registry
      [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv] (currently located in the
      "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)").
      Strictly this registry is in the process of being set up;
      the MPLS working group has requested publication of
      [I-D.ietf-mpls-gach-adv].



    (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.

This document creates one new IANA registry, the allocation policiy
is "IETF Review".

    (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 review required.