Requirements for Hitless MPLS Path Segment Monitoring
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-14

(based on v12 of the document)

(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?

  Informational. This is indicated on the title page header, and is
  appropriate since this document specifies requirements for future work.

(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 MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) includes OAM functions which enable
  maintenance tools that may be used by network operators and service providers
  for fault location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-
  of-service measurements.  Based on identified problems, this document provides
  considerations for the specification of new requirements to consider a new
  improved mechanism for hitless transport path segment monitoring to be named
  Enhanced Path Segment Monitoring (EPSM).

Working Group Summary

  WG progress was relatively smooth with no controversy.

Document Quality

  The document has been well reviewed by the WG,  liaised to ITU-T SG15 as mentioned below,
  and updated accordingly. As a requirements document it does not specify any
  protocol to be implemented, but rather specifies requirements which will be used
  to guide future work.

Personnel

    David Sinicrope is the current Document Shepherd.
    Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director.
    David Sinicrope took over Document Shepherd responsibility from Ross Callon.

(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 has reviewed the document, and the document
  has been updated in response to his comments.  Huub  van Helvoort has also done a grammatical review of the document. In addition Rtg Dir Review was performed and liaisons to ITU-T SG15 generated to inform them of the draft and its intent to describe different MPLS-TP OAM requirements those communicated from ITU-T previously.

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

  no 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 additional review needed.

(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.

While no explicit concerns, it should be noted that the document entertains “analysis of existing MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms” and “provides requirements to guide development of new OAM tools” on a topic where requirements were established, led and communicated from ITU-T SG15.  There has been liaison activity related to this topic and I-D dating back to 2010 with https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/917/.  Continued open communication with ITU-T SG15 should be maintained to ensure continuity and migration from existing requirements and solutions. 

(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 authors have confirmed they are not aware of any IPR that 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
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference 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? 

Rough consensus. The document has been progressing slowly for quite a while and there was positive response to the WGLC with no objections albeit from a small handful of people, mostly from the author’s affiliations.

(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 discontent or objection, just caution as noted by the comments regarding ITU-T above.

(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.

  IDnits pointed to a few minor issues which should be corrected in v13.
e.g.,  there is a reference in the abstract, [6371] which should be removed, so that it mentions RFC 6371 only.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable. 

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


  Yes. It should be noted that there are M#/Mandatory requirements made to informative references.

(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 references are to published 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 downrefs. Earlier versions of the document did have downrefs but it was
  clear that these should have been informative references, and the document
  was updated accordingly.

(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.

  not applicable.

(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. This is appropriate.

(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.

  There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

  not applicable.

(based on v12 of the document)

(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?

  Informational. This is indicated on the title page header, and is
  appropriate since this document specifies requirements for future work.

(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 MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) includes OAM functions which enable
  maintenance tools that may be used by network operators and service providers
  for fault location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-
  of-service measurements.  Based on identified problems, this document provides
  considerations for the specification of new requirements to consider a new
  improved mechanism for hitless transport path segment monitoring to be named
  Enhanced Path Segment Monitoring (EPSM).

Working Group Summary

  WG progress was relatively smooth with no controversy.

Document Quality

  The document has been well reviewed by the WG,  liaised to ITU-T SG15 as mentioned below,
  and updated accordingly. As a requirements document it does not specify any
  protocol to be implemented, but rather specifies requirements which will be used
  to guide future work.

Personnel

    David Sinicrope is the current Document Shepherd.
    Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director.
    David Sinicrope took over Document Shepherd responsibility from Ross Callon.

(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 has reviewed the document, and the document
  has been updated in response to his comments.  Huub  van Helvoort has also done a grammatical review of the document. In addition Rtg Dir Review was performed and liaisons to ITU-T SG15 generated to inform them of the draft and its intent to describe different MPLS-TP OAM requirements those communicated from ITU-T previously.

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

  no 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 additional review needed.

(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.

While no explicit concerns, it should be noted that the document entertains “analysis of existing MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms” and “provides requirements to guide development of new OAM tools” on a topic where requirements were established, led and communicated from ITU-T SG15.  There has been liaison activity related to this topic and I-D dating back to 2010 with https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/917/.  Continued open communication with ITU-T SG15 should be maintained to ensure continuity and migration from existing requirements and solutions. 

(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. (this is being reconfirmed for the latest revision)

(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 filed that reference 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? 

Rough consensus. The document has been progressing slowly for quite a while and there was positive response to the WGLC with no objections albeit from a small handful of people, mostly from the author’s affiliations.

(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 discontent or objection, just caution as noted by the comments regarding ITU-T above.

(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.

  IDnits pointed to a few minor issues which should be corrected in v13.
e.g.,  there is a reference in the abstract, [6371] which should be removed, so that it mentions RFC 6371 only.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable. 

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


  Yes. It should be noted that there are M#/Mandatory requirements made to informative references.

(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 references are to published 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 downrefs. Earlier versions of the document did have downrefs but it was
  clear that these should have been informative references, and the document
  was updated accordingly.

(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.

  not applicable.

(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. This is appropriate.

(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.

  There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

  not applicable.

(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?

  Informational. This is indicated on the title page header, and is
  appropriate since this document specifies requirements for future work.

(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 MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) includes OAM functions which enable
  maintenance tools that may be used by network operators and service providers
  for fault location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-
  of-service measurements.  Based on identified problems, this document provides
  considerations for the specification of new requirements to consider a new
  improved mechanism for hitless transport path segment monitoring to be named
  Enhanced Path Segment Monitoring (EPSM).

Working Group Summary

  WG progress was relatively smooth with no controversy.

Document Quality

  The document has been well reviewed by the WG and also as mentioned below,
  and updated accordingly. As a requirements document it does not specify any
  protocol to be implemented, but rather specifies requirements which will be used
  to guide future work.

Personnel

David Sinicrope is the current Document Shepherd, taking over from Ross Callon. 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.

  The document shepherd has reviewed the document, and the document
  has been updated in response to his comments.  At WG chair request Huub
  van Helvoort has also done a grammatical review of the document. In addition Rtg Dir Review was performed and liaisons to ITU-T SG15 generated to inform them of the draft and its intent to describe different MPLS-TP OAM requirements those communicated from ITU-T previously.

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

  no 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 additional review needed.

(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.

While no explicit concerns, it should be noted that the document entertains “analysis of existing MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms” and “provides requirements to guide development of new OAM tools” on a topic where requirements were established, led and communicated from ITU-T SG15.  There has been liaison activity related to this topic and I-D dating back to 2010 with https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/917/.  Continued open communication with ITU-T SG15 should be maintained to ensure continuity and migration from existing requirements and solutions. 

(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. (this is being reconfirmed for the latest revision)

(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 filed that reference 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? 

Rough consensus. The document has been progressing slowly for quite a while and there was positive response to the WGLC with no objections albeit from a small handful of people, mostly from the author’s affiliations.

(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 discontent or objection, just caution as noted by the comments regarding ITU-T above.

(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.

  IDnits pointed to a few minor issues which should be corrected in v12.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable. 

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

  Yes. It should be noted that there are M#/Mandatory requirements made to informative references.

(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 references are to published 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 downrefs. Earlier versions of the document did have downrefs but it was
  clear that these should have been informative references, and the document
  was updated accordingly.

(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.

  not applicable.

(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. This is appropriate.

(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.

  There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

  not applicable.

[Ballot comment]
Stewart Bryant's Gen-ART review comments deserve more discussion, in my opinion. Perhaps that response is in the way of showing that Stewart is wrong, or that the working group has knowingly chosen a particular path, or that some clarification or changes are needed in the document. But substantial comments need to be addressed in some fashion, and I don't feel we're quite there yet. But I also didn't see much discussion on my e-mail search, it is possible of course that discussion happened without me seeing it (I'm not on the MPLS WG list).

All that being said, I held a Discuss position as a request for discussion, but I did not plan to hold on to it beyond the initial telechat, and I have now cleared (also considering that I'm off the IESG in a couple of days).

[Ballot discuss]
Stewart Bryant's Gen-ART review comments deserve more discussion, in my opinion. Perhaps that response is in the way of showing that Stewart is wrong, or that the working group has knowingly chosen a particular path, or that some clarification or changes are needed in the document. But substantial comments need to be addressed in some fashion, and I don't feel we're quite there yet. But I also didn't see much discussion on my e-mail search, it is possible of course that discussion happened without me seeing it (I'm not on the MPLS WG list).

All that being said, this Discuss position is a request for discussion, but I do not plan to hold on to it beyond this telechat.

[Ballot comment]
OPS DIR review from Jon Mitchell:

Document is Ready with Nits.  I share the concern that it's not
totally clear upfront this is
a requirements versus solution document.  There is also not much in
the way of requirements
of notification or how to signal back to the operator that a fault has
occurred, but this
may be OK if whatever solution would meet the requirements of this
draft will include
such text or rely on existing mechanisms discussed in RFC6371.

[Ballot comment]
I don't see a value in publishing this document in the RFC series. Btw. the shepherd write up still says this doc is standards track.

Minor comments:
- The classification into M(andatory) and O(ptional) is not consistent with the use of MUST and SHOULD.
- The first sentence in the intro should use a lower case 'must'.
- Sections 2.2 and 5. could be removed.

[Ballot comment]
I don't see a value in publishing this document in the RFC series. Btw. the sherpherd write up still says this doc is standards track.

Minor comments:
- The classification into M(andatory) and O(ptional) is not consistent with the use of MUST and SHOULD.
- The first sentence in the intro should use a lower case 'must'.
- Sections 2.2 and 5. could be removed.

(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?

  Proposed Standard. This is indicated on the title page header, and is
  appropriate since this document specifies requirements for future work.

(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 MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) includes OAM functions which enable
  maintenance tools that may be used by network operators and service providers
  for fault location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-
  of-service measurements.  Based on identified problems, this document provides
  considerations for the specification of new requirements to consider a new
  improved mechanism for hitless transport path segment monitoring to be named
  Enhanced Path Segment Monitoring (EPSM).

Working Group Summary

  WG progress was smooth with no controversy.

Document Quality

  The document has been well reviewed by the WG and also as mentioned below,
  and updated accordingly. As a requirements document it does not specify any
  protocol to be implemented, but rather specifies requirements which will be used
  to guide future work.

Personnel

  Ross Callon was initially the Document Shepherd, it is now David Sinicrope.
  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.

  The document shepherd has reviewed the document, and the document
  has been updated in response to his comments.  At WG chair request Huub
  van Helvoort has also done a grammatical review of the document.

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

  no 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 additional review needed.

(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 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.

(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 filed that reference 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? 

  Solid consensus. The document has been stable for quite a while
  (except for editorial improvements) and there was significant positive
  response to the WGLC with no objections.

(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.

(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.

  IDnits was completely clean, with no issues found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable. 

(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?

  All references are to published 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 downrefs. Earlier versions of the document did have downrefs but it was
  clear that these should have been informative references, and the document
  was updated accordingly.

(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.

  not applicable.

(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. This is appropriate.

(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.

  There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

  not applicable.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, mpls@ietf.org, "David Sinicrope" , mpls-chairs@ietf.org, david.sinicrope@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Hitless path segment monitoring) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Hitless path segment monitoring'
  as Informational RFC

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 2017-03-03. 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


  One of the most important OAM capabilities for transport network
  operation is fault localisation.  An in-service, on-demand segment
  monitoring function of a transport path is indispensable,
  particularly when the service monitoring function is activated only
  between end points.  However, the current segment monitoring approach
  defined for MPLS (including the transport profile (MPLS-TP)) in RFC
  6371 [RFC6371] has drawbacks.  This document provides an analysis of
  the existing MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms for the path segment monitoring
  and provides requirements to guide the development of new OAM tools
  to support a Hitless Path Segment Monitoring (HPSM).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm/ballot/


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

Document has been revised significantly based on Routing Area Directorate review and AD review. It will need review by the Working Group and another WG Last Call.

(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?

  Proposed Standard. This is indicated on the title page header, and is
  appropriate since this document specifies requirements for future work.

(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 MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) includes OAM functions which enable
  maintenance tools that may be used by network operators and service providers
  for fault location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-
  of-service measurements.  Based on identified problems, this document provides
  considerations for the specification of new requirements to consider a new
  improved mechanism for hitless transport path segment monitoring to be named
  Enhanced Path Segment Monitoring (EPSM).

Working Group Summary

  WG progress was smooth with no controversy.

Document Quality

  The document has been well reviewed by the WG and also as mentioned below,
  and updated accordingly. As a requirements document it does not specify any
  protocol to be implemented, but rather specifies requirements which will be used
  to guide future work.

Personnel

  Ross Callon 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.

  The document shepherd has reviewed the document, and the document
  has been updated in response to his comments.  At WG chair request Huub
  van Helvoort has also done a grammatical review of the document.

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

  no 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 additional review needed.

(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 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.

(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 filed that reference 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? 

  Solid consensus. The document has been stable for quite a while
  (except for editorial improvements) and there was significant positive
  response to the WGLC with no objections.

(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.

(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.

  IDnits was completely clean, with no issues found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable. 

(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?

  All references are to published 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 downrefs. Earlier versions of the document did have downrefs but it was
  clear that these should have been informative references, and the document
  was updated accordingly.

(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.

  not applicable.

(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. This is appropriate.

(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.

  There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

  not applicable.