The MPLS working group request that
A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks
Is published as an Informational RFC
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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 document is a rather typical framework and should be published
as an Informational RFC. We are seeking IETF consensus, since the
document potentially needs to be referenced ITU-T Recommendations,
the document should go through an IETF Last Call.
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
MPLS-TP is the common set of MPLS protocol functions defined
to enable establsihment and operation of packet transport networks
MPLS-TP supports both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transport
paths (LSPs). This document defines the elements and functions of
the MPLS architecture applicable specifically to the support point-to-
multipoint transport paths.
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
No such concerns.
MPLS-RT reviewers, before adopting the document as a working
group document, were David Allan, Jia He and Lizhong Jin.
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?
This document is an Informational framework, and as such we will see
no direct implementations of the document, though we are aware of
intentions to implement protocols for establsihing P2MP MPLS-TP LSPs.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Loa Andersson 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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the document in full two times
and partly several times.
The first full review were done prior to the acceptance of the document
as a working group document, the second prior to starting the working
group last call.
The Document Shepherd is convinced that the document is ready to be
published as an Informational RFC.
(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 has been done, nor are they 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.
The working group mailing list were polled for IPRs prior to the
WGLC. All the authors has confirmed that they are not aware of
any IPR that is related 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
No IPR claims 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 is behind this document.
The document is also one of (the last) documents that we agreed
with ITU-T SG15 to develop for MPLS-TP.
(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
The Document Shepherd has presonal checked that the document
passes the nits tool checks clean.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No requirements for formal reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The references are correctly split.
(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 normative references are to existing 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.
No downward refreneces.
(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 of this RFC will not change the status of any
(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 requests for IANA actions 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 IANA registries that will require Expert Review is created by
(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 reviews (other than nits) has been necessary for