(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. Draft discusses requirements and no implementable aspects.
Yes, RFC type 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:
There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that
are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSP.
In core networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate
capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single
physical link or single packet processing element.
The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised
of multiple layers has resulted in additional requirements. Certain
services may benefit from being restricted to a subset of the
component links or a specific component link, where component link
characteristics, such as latency, differ. Certain services require
that an LSP be treated as atomic and avoid reordering. Other
services will continue to require only that reordering not occur
within a microflow as is current practice.
Working Group Summary
Interest in the draft was mild - focus mostly from a small set of participants
and the co-authors. There were no contentious points. There was discussion
about the value of DR#6 where the overhead of just signaling the composite link
members may be better than dealing with crankback or poor summarization.
The work can support both approaches.
After the last WGLC completed, there was concern about the terminology of
composite link not quite matching that used in the ITU. The draft has been
updated to use the term "Advanced Multipath" instead. Some additional simplifications were also made by the authors' agreement.
The document is well written and has been updated with focus several times.
It has benefited from having Curtis Villamizar being a focused and motivated
editor for this and the related drafts.
There are no existing implementations, as makes sense for a requirements draft.
Document Shepherd: Alia Atlas
Responsible AD: Stewart Bryant
(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
I reviewed this draft at WGLC as well as several times previously. I also
reviewed it in the context of the associated drafts. I've reviewed the differences
between the -11 and -13 versions.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
While I would have liked to have seen more interest from a larger portion
of the WG, the Composite Link work has gotten good review over the past
several years. It is clearly a more niche topic.
(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 particular review is specifically 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
My only concern is that Composite-Links are a bit of a niche area. Nonetheless,
the WG has not had any concerns about the work moving forward.
(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, each author has confirmed the lack of any associated IPR; thus all
appropriate IPR disclosures (none) have been filed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
It represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals with others occasionally
chiming in and no disagreement.
(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.)
(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
(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?
(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?
(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.
(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.
Will not affect other existing RFCs
(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).
No IANA work needed.
(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.
(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.