(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:
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.
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.
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 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?
(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 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
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
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
IDnits pointed to a few minor issues which should be corrected in v13.
e.g., there is a reference in the abstract,  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.
(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.
(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.