Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8920, changed abstract to 'Existing traffic-engineering-related link attribute advertisements have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments.  Since the original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g., Segment Routing Policy and Loop-Free Alternates) that also make use of the link attribute advertisements have been defined.  In cases where multiple applications wish to make use of these link attributes, the current advertisements do not support application-specific values for a given attribute, nor do they support indication of which applications are using the advertised value for a given link.  This document introduces new link attribute advertisements in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 that address both of these shortcomings.', changed pages to 19, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2020-10-22, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Discuss cleared.  Thank you for addressing my comments.

Two possible nits in section 5:

  If the same attribute is advertised in more than single ASLA sub-TLVs
  with the application listed in the Application Bit Masks, the
  application SHOULD use the first instance of advertisement and ignore
  any subsequent advertisements of that attribute.

Propose changing "single" to "one".

  If link attributes are advertised associated with zero length
  Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and
  user defined applications, then any Standard Application and/or any
  User Defined Application is permitted to use that set of link
  attributes.

Propose changing "associated with" to "with associated" or just "with"

Thanks,
Rob


Previous discuss comments:

I found parts of this document hard to understand, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of the protocols.

This discuss is in the vein of "I think that folks might struggle to implement this correctly/consistently".  In particular I had some questions/concerns about section 5 which, if clarified, would probably help this document.

In Section 5:

  The ASLA sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV and can appear multiple times
  in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV.  The ASLA
  sub-TLV MUST be used for advertisement of the link attributes listed
  at the end on this section if these are advertised inside OSPFv2
  Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV.  It has the following
  format:

I think that it would be useful to clarify when/why the ASLA sub-TLV can be included multiple times.  I.e. when different applications want to control different link attributes.

  Standard Application Identifier Bits are defined/sent starting with
  Bit 0.  Undefined bits which are transmitted MUST be transmitted as 0
  and MUST be ignored on receipt.  Bits that are not transmitted MUST
  be treated as if they are set to 0 on receipt.  Bits that are not
  supported by an implementation MUST be ignored on receipt.

It was not clear to me what it means if the SABM (or UDABM) fields are entirely empty.  This paragraph states that they are treated as if they are 0, but sections 8 and 11 imply that if the field is omitted then it acts as if all applications are allowed.  Section 12.2 implies that if the field is omitted then it is as if all applications are allowed unless there there is another ASLA with the given application bit set, in which case it is treated as being a 0 again.  I think that this document would be helped if the specific behaviour was defined in section 5, retaining the justification/clarification in the subsequent sections.

It is also not entirely clear to me exactly how the bits are encoded on the wire.  My assumption is that if bit 0 is set, then this would sent the highest bit of the first byte.  E.g. 0x80?  Is that correct?  If not, then I think that the document needs more text, if so, then an example of the encoding may still aid readability.

  User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to
  Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or
  any other standards body.  It is recommended that bits are used
  starting with Bit 0 so as to minimize the number of octets required
  to advertise all UDAs.

Doesn't this need more constraints to ensure easy interop (i.e. bits default to 0).  Otherwise, it would seem that anyone is allowed to put any value in this field that they like that could harm interop, or otherwise it might be tricky to compare a 4 byte UDABM to an 8 byte UDABM?

  This document defines the initial set of link attributes that MUST
  use the ASLA sub-TLV if advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV or
  in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV.  Documents which define new link
  attributes MUST state whether the new attributes support application
  specific values and as such MUST be advertised in an ASLA sub-TLV.
  The link attributes that MUST be advertised in ASLA sub-TLVs are:

I think that I get what this means, but I find the last two sentences slightly jarring given than the ASLA TLV is optional.  Perhaps predicate both of these constraints with "(if supproted)".  E.g., something like,

Documents which define new link
attributes MUST state whether the new attributes support application
specific values and as such MUST be advertised in an ASLA sub-TLV (if supported).
The link attributes that MUST be advertised in ASLA sub-TLVs (if supported) are:

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for resolving my discuss on aligning SR terms with SPRING's work.

I remain unconvinced on backward compatibility with RSVP-TE, hence my abstain ballot. Similar to other operators, I have serious concerns with operational aspects and the unfair burden placed on operators. A simple on/off control would have provided a much more elegant solution.

From the discussion, this is obviously a multi-vendor agreement on their preferred way, so while I disagree, I will not stand in the way.

[Ballot discuss]
This should be simple to resolve - the use of the SR-TE term is out-of-alignment with other drafts, spring and idr. Suggest: Segment Routing Traffic Engineering/s/Segment Routing Policy and SRTE/s/SR Policy.

And this should be obvious, the abstract justifies the need for this document because routers assume RSVP-TE on a link based on an OSPF advertisement. But that's an implementation shortcut and needs to be noted as that. Sure, it was ok when everything was RSVP/RSVP-TE. But let's not make it a "BCP". This needs to be corrected to say "Some implementations..". I would suggest aligning this abstract with the ISIS draft and move this paragraph to later in the document.

[Ballot comment]
As Warren noted, the draft is very difficult to read.

The specific problem (to me) is the ability to support advertisement of application specific values? And, to say, new applications MUST NOT make use of RSVP-TE LSA advertisements which is causing confusion for (some) implementations. It would help to make this more clearer and not muddy with implementation woes.

I don't see any discussion on the dark bandwidth problem or the security problems identified in RFC8426? It would be helpful if the draft pointed to the RFC8426 solution.

[Ballot comment]
I am unable to figure out how this is intended to function and are structured. If that is my lack of OSPF background or a failure in the documents description I don't know.

[Ballot comment]
(revised)
** Section 5.  (same comment as raised about Section 4.1. of draft-ietf-isis-te-app) If the possible values of SABM Length and UDABM Length are 0, 4 and 8, and these are stored literally, why are 8 bits required?  Could they be reallocated to the Reserved field?

** Section 13. (same comment as raised about Section 4.1. of draft-ietf-isis-te-app) Per “Tampering with the information defined in this document may have an effect on applications using it, including impacting Traffic Engineering.”, I have no disagreement with this statement.  However, I would recommend adding a brief statement what is the security impact of “impacting Traffic Engineering”.

** Section 13.  Per "This is similar in nature to the impacts associated with (for example) [RFC3630]", what specific text in RFC3630 was envisioned.  I didn't follow the link.

[Ballot discuss]
This should be simple to resolve - the use of the SR-TE term is out-of-alignment with other drafts, spring and idr. Suggest: Segment Routing Traffic Engineering/s/Segment Routing Policy and SRTE/s/SR Policy.

[Ballot comment]
As Warren noted, the draft is very difficult to read.

This doesn't parse:
"As soon as the router that is an RSVP-TE head-end sees the link attribute being
  advertised for that link, it assumes RSVP-TE is enabled on that link,
  even though it is not.  If such RSVP-TE head-end router tries to
  setup an RSVP-TE path via that link it will result in the path setup
  failure."
It seems there is the assumption the link is congruent with the signaling (maybe some implementations do but not per spec). Maybe this is needed by some implementations, but the draft seems to make it a "general problem".

But I don't think this is really the intention of the draft - even section 4.1 says duplication would be only in "rare cases". The specific problem (to me) is the ability to support advertisement of application specific values? And, to say, new applications MUST NOT make use of RSVP-TE LSA advertisements which is causing confusion for (some) implementations. It would help to make this more clearer and not muddy with implementation woes.

I don't see any discussion on the dark bandwidth problem or the security problems identified in RFC8426? It would be helpful if the draft pointed to the RFC8426 solution.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 5.  (same comment as raised about Section 4.1. of draft-ietf-isis-te-app) If the possible values of SABM Length and UDABM Length are 0, 4 and 8, and these are stored literally, why are 8 bits required?  Could they be reallocated to the Reserved field?

[Ballot discuss]
I found parts of this document hard to understand, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of the protocols.

This discuss is in the vein of "I think that folks might struggle to implement this correctly/consistently".  In particular I had some questions/concerns about section 5 which, if clarified, would probably help this document.

In Section 5:

  The ASLA sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV and can appear multiple times
  in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV.  The ASLA
  sub-TLV MUST be used for advertisement of the link attributes listed
  at the end on this section if these are advertised inside OSPFv2
  Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV.  It has the following
  format:

I think that it would be useful to clarify when/why the ASLA sub-TLV can be included multiple times.  I.e. when different applications want to control different link attributes.

  Standard Application Identifier Bits are defined/sent starting with
  Bit 0.  Undefined bits which are transmitted MUST be transmitted as 0
  and MUST be ignored on receipt.  Bits that are not transmitted MUST
  be treated as if they are set to 0 on receipt.  Bits that are not
  supported by an implementation MUST be ignored on receipt.

It was not clear to me what it means if the SABM (or UDABM) fields are entirely empty.  This paragraph states that they are treated as if they are 0, but sections 8 and 11 imply that if the field is omitted then it acts as if all applications are allowed.  Section 12.2 implies that if the field is omitted then it is as if all applications are allowed unless there there is another ASLA with the given application bit set, in which case it is treated as being a 0 again.  I think that this document would be helped if the specific behaviour was defined in section 5, retaining the justification/clarification in the subsequent sections.

It is also not entirely clear to me exactly how the bits are encoded on the wire.  My assumption is that if bit 0 is set, then this would sent the highest bit of the first byte.  E.g. 0x80?  Is that correct?  If not, then I think that the document needs more text, if so, then an example of the encoding may still aid readability.

  User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to
  Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or
  any other standards body.  It is recommended that bits are used
  starting with Bit 0 so as to minimize the number of octets required
  to advertise all UDAs.

Doesn't this need more constraints to ensure easy interop (i.e. bits default to 0).  Otherwise, it would seem that anyone is allowed to put any value in this field that they like that could harm interop, or otherwise it might be tricky to compare a 4 byte UDABM to an 8 byte UDABM?

  This document defines the initial set of link attributes that MUST
  use the ASLA sub-TLV if advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV or
  in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV.  Documents which define new link
  attributes MUST state whether the new attributes support application
  specific values and as such MUST be advertised in an ASLA sub-TLV.
  The link attributes that MUST be advertised in ASLA sub-TLVs are:

I think that I get what this means, but I find the last two sentences slightly jarring given than the ASLA TLV is optional.  Perhaps predicate both of these constraints with "(if supproted)".  E.g., something like,

Documents which define new link
attributes MUST state whether the new attributes support application
specific values and as such MUST be advertised in an ASLA sub-TLV (if supported).
The link attributes that MUST be advertised in ASLA sub-TLVs (if supported) are:

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
The link attributes are sub-sub-TLVs, but are sections 6 and 7 constantly refer to them as “TLV types”, which seems imprecise.

Nits:

S/other then/other than

Throughout this document, the indefinite and definite articles ‘a’, ‘an’, and ‘the’ are often missing  where needed and present where not needed.

[Ballot comment]
Three main things from me:

(1) I found I'm in agreement below with some of the points raised in the posted OPSDIR review.  Please give that another once-over.

(2) A grammatical point: I think nearly every instance in this document of "which" should be replaced by "that".

(3) In Section 12.3.3, I don't think it's appropriate to use MUST-type language to constrain future document authors.

And now, my nit-storm:

Section 1:
* "... attribute advertisements - examples of which ..." -- hyphen should be a comma
* "... for a link that is not enabled for RSV-TE." -- s/RSV/RSVP/
* "... path via that link it will result ..." -- comma after "link"

Section 3:
* Please define, or provide a reference for, "GMPLS".

Section 4.1:
* "... not inspected by OSPF, that acts as ..." -- s/that/which instead/

Section 5:
* Several changes to this paragraph suggested:
OLD:
  On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized
  applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of
  application that is not defined as standardized one.  We call such
  application a user defined application.  What such application might
  be is not subject to the standardization and is outside of the scope
  of this specification.
NEW:
  On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized
  applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of
  applications that are not standardized.  We call such an
  application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA".  These applications are
  not subject to standardization and are outside of the scope
  of this specification.

* Is the snapshot of the current content of the Link Attribute Application Identifier Registry needed?  The rest of the document doesn't seem to reference it.
* "... to advertise all UDAs." -- although it's fairly clear at this point what a UDA is, I suggest defining it somewhere above, maybe by hanging it off one of the other places where the full name is used such as in the paragraph above

Section 6.1:
* Please expand "IPFRR" on first use.

Section 6.2:
* "All these can be used ..." -- s/All/All of/

Section 11:
* "- e.g.  RSVP-TE -" -- comma after "e.g."
* "... one need to make sure ..." -- s/need/needs/
* "... applications, where the enablement ..." -- remove comma
* "... such application - e.g.  LFA." -- change to "such application.  An example of this is LFA."

Section 12.3.4:
* "Link attributes that are NOT allowed  ..." -- s/NOT/not/

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. I have a single non-blocking COMMENT (question):

In section 5, if the SABM and UDABM lengths are either 0, 4 or 8, then I wonder why the "SABM Length" and "UDABM Length" fields are 8 bits. In control plane, using 2 or 3 bits length would not have a performance impact and would allow for a longer Reserved header field.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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 specifies extensions to RFC 7684 and RFC 8362 to
      facilitate the encodings originally designated for MPLS and GMPLS
      traffic engineering for other applications. This provides the
      ability to specify different attributes for different applications.
      More importantly, it significantly reduces the number of LSAs
      required for emerging applications such as segment routing. The
      savings is 33% for OSPFv2 and 50% for OSPFv3.

Working Group Summary:

      Initially, there was a lot of debate as to whether or not this
      was required as some argued it could be done by just using the
      the MPLS and GMPLS TE encodings for other applications. After much
      debate consensus was reached and this suboptimal solution was
      dicarded. There was at least one holdout who had done some open
      source work with OSPF TE LSAs.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for a multiple years.
      It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only
      clarifications.

Personnel:

      Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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 each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      None.

(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.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress. It took some time to get there but
      we are here now. As mentioned previously, there is one
      outlier who did some open source work.
     

(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.)

  Despite WG consensus, there has been continued opposition
  from Olivier Dugeon based on open source currently advertising TE LSAs in
  non-TE environments. Here are pointers he provided:

The link is: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr and more specifically:
- https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/lib/if.c for the link parameters implementation per interface
- https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/ospfd/ospf_te.c for the advertisement of link parameters in OSPF
- https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/isisd/isis_te.c for the advertisement of link parameters in ISIS


(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

(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.

      No.

(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).
 
      The IANA considerations are correct and the OSPFv2 Extended Link
      attribute TLVs have been temporarily assigned through the early
      allocation process. OSPFv3 early allocations are being requested.

(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 new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      Not applicable.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/

the following 13 early allocations will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

10 - Application Specific Link Attributes
11 - Shared Risk Link Group
12 - Unidirectional Link Delay
13 - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
14 - Unidirectional Delay Variation
15 - Unidirectional Link Loss
16 - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
17 - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
18 - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
19 - Administrative Group
20 - Extended Administrative Group
22 - TE Metric
23 - Maximum Link Bandwidth

Second, in the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs registry on the Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/

the following 15 early allocations will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

11 - Application Specific Link Attributes
12 - Shared Risk Link Group
13 - Unidirectional Link Delay
14 - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
15 - Unidirectional Delay Variation
16 - Unidirectional Link Loss
16 - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
18 - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
19 - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
20 - Administrative Group
21 - Extended Administrative Group
22 - TE Metric
23 - Maximum Link Bandwidth
24 - Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
25 - Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV

IANA Question --> IANA believes that there is a typo in this list. It seems to IANA that Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth should have a value of 17 and not 16. Is this correct?

The IANA Functions Operator understands 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-05-29):

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11.txt> (OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute Reuse) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute
Reuse'
  <draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11.txt> 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-05-29. 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


  Existing traffic engineering related link attribute advertisements
  have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments.  Since the
  original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g.,
  Segment Routing Traffic Engineering, Loop Free Alternate) have been
  defined which also make use of the link attribute advertisements.  In
  cases where multiple applications wish to make use of these link
  attributes the current advertisements do not support application
  specific values for a given attribute nor do they support indication
  of which applications are using the advertised value for a given
  link.  This document introduces new link attribute advertisements in
  OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 which address both of these shortcomings.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse/



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

(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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 specifies extensions to RFC 7684 and RFC 8362 to
      facilitate the encodings originally designated for MPLS and GMPLS
      traffic engineering for other applications. This provides the
      ability to specify different attributes for different applications.
      More importantly, it significantly reduces the number of LSAs
      required for emerging applications such as segment routing. The
      savings is 33% for OSPFv2 and 50% for OSPFv3.

Working Group Summary:

      Initially, there was a lot of debate as to whether or not this
      was required as some argued it could be done by just using the
      the MPLS and GMPLS TE encodings for other applications. After much
      debate consensus was reached and this suboptimal solution was
      dicarded. There was at least one holdout who had done some open
      source work with OSPF TE LSAs.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for a multiple years.
      It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only
      clarifications.

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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 each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      None.

(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.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress. It took some time to get there but
      we are here now. As mentioned previously, there is one
      outlier who did some open source work.
     

(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.)

  Despite WG consensus, there has been continued opposition
  from Olivier Dugeon based on open source currently advertising TE LSAs in
  non-TE environments. Here are pointers he provided:

The link is: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr and more specifically:
- https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/lib/if.c for the link parameters implementation per interface
- https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/ospfd/ospf_te.c for the advertisement of link parameters in OSPF
- https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/isisd/isis_te.c for the advertisement of link parameters in ISIS


(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

(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.

      No.

(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).
 
      The IANA considerations are correct and the OSPFv2 Extended Link
      attribute TLVs have been temporarily assigned through the early
      allocation process. OSPFv3 early allocations are being requested.

(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 new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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 specifies extensions to RFC 7684 and RFC 8362 to
      facilitate the encodings originally designated for MPLS and GMPLS
      traffic engineering for other applications. This provides the
      ability to specify different attributes for different applications.
      More importantly, it significantly reduces the number of LSAs
      required for emerging applications such as segment routing. The
      savings is 33% for OSPFv2 and 50% for OSPFv3.

Working Group Summary:

      Initially, there was a lot of debate as to whether or not this
      was required as some argued it could be done by just using the
      the MPLS and GMPLS TE encodings for other applications. After much
      debate consensus was reached and this suboptimal solution was
      dicarded. There was at least one holdout who had done some open
      source work with OSPF TE LSAs.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for a multiple years.
      It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only
      clarifications.

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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 each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      None.

(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.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress. It took some time to get there but
      we are here now. As mentioned previously, there is one
      outlier who did some open source work.
     

(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.)

      Will do before the document reaches the IESG.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

(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.

      No.

(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).
 
      The IANA considerations are correct and the OSPFv2 Extended Link
      attribute TLVs have been temporarily assigned through the early
      allocation process. OSPFv3 early allocations are being requested.

(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 new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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 specifies extensions to RFC 7684 and RFC 8362 to
      facilitate the encodings originally designated for MPLS and GMPLS
      traffic engineering for other applications. This provides the
      ability to specify different attributes for different applications.
      More importantly, it significantly reduces the number of LSAs
      required for emerging applications such as segment routing. The
      savings is 33% for OSPFv2 and 50% for OSPFv3.

Working Group Summary:

      Initially, there was a lot of debate as to whether or not this
      was required as some argued it could be done by just using the
      the MPLS and GMPLS TE encodings for other applications. After much
      debate consensus was reached and this suboptimal solution was
      dicarded. There was at least one holdout who had done some open
      source work with OSPF TE LSAs.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for a multiple years.
      It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only
      clarifications.

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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 each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      None.

(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.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress. It took some time to get there but
      we are here now. As mentioned previously, there is one
      outlier who did some open source work.
     

(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.)

      Will do before the document reaches the IESG.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

(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.

      No.

(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).
 
      The IANA considerations are correct and the OSPFv2 Extended Link
      attribute TLVs have been temporarily assigned through the early
      allocation process. OSPFv3 early allocations are being requested.

(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 new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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 specifies extensions to RFC 7684 and RFC 8362 to
      facilitate the encodings originally designated for MPLS and GMPLS
      traffic engineering for other applications. This provides the
      ability to specify different attributes for different applications.
      More importantly, it significantly reduces the number of LSAs
      required for emerging applications such as segment routing. The
      savings is 33% for OSPFv2 and 50% for OSPFv3.

Working Group Summary:

      Initially, there was a lot of debate as to whether or not this
      was required as some argued it could be done by just using the
      the MPLS and GMPLS TE encodings for other applications. After much
      debate consensus was reached and this suboptimal solution was
      dicarded. There was at least one holdout who had done some open
      source work with OSPF TE LSAs.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for a multiple years.
      It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only
      clarifications.

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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 each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      None.

(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.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress. It took some time to get there but
      we are here now. As mentioned previously, there is one
      outlier who did some open source work.
     

(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.)

      Will do before the document reaches the IESG.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

(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.

      No.

(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).
 
      The IANA considerations are correct and have been temporarily
      assigned through the early allocation process.

(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 new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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 specifies extensions to RFC 7684 and RFC 8362 to
      facilitate the encodings originally designated for MPLS and GMPLS
      traffic engineering for other applications. This provides the
      ability to specify different attributes for different applications.
      More importantly, it significantly reduces the number of LSAs
      required for emerging applications such as segment routing. The
      savings is 33% for OSPFv2 and 50% for OSPFv3.

Working Group Summary:

      Initially, there was a lot of debate as to whether or not this
      was required as some argued it could be done by just using the
      the MPLS and GMPLS TE encodings for other applications. After much
      debate consensus was reached and this suboptimal solution was
      dicarded. There was at least one holdout who had done some open
      source work with OSPF TE LSAs.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for a multiple years.
      It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only
      clarifications.

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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 each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list.


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

      No.

(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.

(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.

      None.

(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.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress. It took some time to get there but
      we are here now. As mentioned previously, there is one
      outlier who did some open source work.
     

(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.)

      Will do before the document reaches the IESG.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

(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.

      No.

(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).
 
      The IANA considerations are correct and have been temporarily
      assigned through the early allocation process.

(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 new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      Not applicable.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@rtbrick.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@rtbrick.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@rtbrick.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@rtbrick.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@rtbrick.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@rtbrick.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@rtbrick.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, ospf-chairs@ietf.org