A Framework for IP and MPLS Fast Reroute Using Not-Via Addresses
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-11

Moving this document to revised I-D needed. I really don't see why the author's unresponsiveness should be counted in the statistics as the AD's poor performance.

[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to at least spend a few minutes during the telechat diving into Wes's question in his ballot: Why are these being published as WG items? Was the WG working on something that they thought was going to end up as a standards track document but ended up with a lot of output and nothing they could standardize? Is that worth publishing? The writeup is exceedingly thin on this point. I'm not at all sure what the "subtleties involved" have to do with the desire to publish.

[Ballot comment]
Some sentences using the RFC 2119 keywords are apparently wrong.
- The not-via approach provides complete repair coverage and therefore MAY be used as the sole repair mechanism.
- Note that if the path from B to the final destination includes one or more nodes that are included in the repair path, a packet MAY back track after the encapsulation is removed. 
- etc...

My advice is to review the sentences with MAY/SHOULD/MUST
See RFC 2119 section 6

Note: I did beat Pete on this one ;-) but I doublechecked a few examples with him!

[Ballot comment]
I'm not totally clear on the ultimate goal of publishing this as an RFC (rather than just a magazine or journal article), based on the IPR and lack of concrete specification.  I think the "Purpose of this Document" could be more clear, despite having a section of that name.  Normally we don't just capture a WG's thinking and move on, unless we're maybe declaring open issues and unsolved mysteries that require a bunch of long-term work, and I didn't get that impression from this document.

[Ballot comment]
Please consider adding a sentence noting that this document should not be accepted as a normative downref from a standards track document. Any IETF review this document has received has been shaped by the disclaimer that this is just reference for future work and is not appropriate for implementation. When it becomes appropriate, it would be much better if the the relevant algorithms and ideas were copied forward into a standards track document or that this document were explicitly revised to be on the standards track than to incorporate it into the standards track via a downref.

[Ballot comment]

  Please consider the clarifications suggested in the Gen-ART Review by
  Suresh Krishnan on 4-feb-2013.  You can find there review here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg08156.html

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-10, which
is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA
Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (A Framework for IP and MPLS Fast Reroute Using Not-via Addresses) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document:
- 'A Framework for IP and MPLS Fast Reroute Using Not-via Addresses'
  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 2013-01-31. 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

  This document presents a framework for providing fast reroute in an
  IP or MPLS network through encapsulation and forwarding to "not-via"
  addresses.  The general approach described uses a single level of
  encapsulation and could be used to protect unicast, multicast, and
  LDP traffic against link, router, and shared risk group failure,
  regardless of network topology and metrics.

  The mechanisms presented in this document are purely illustrative of
  the general approach and do not constitute a protocol specification.
  The document represents a snapshot of the work of the Routing Area
  Working Group at the time of publication and is published as a
  document of record.  Further work is needed before implementation or
  deployment.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1794/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1455/

Email sent
===
Thanks to Stewart for discussions and updates to this document.

It is ready to move forward, but needs updates to the Shepherd write-up per my email in October.
It should be relatively easy to construct this from my email and the changes Stewart has made to the document.

Thanks,
Adrian

AD review...

Hi,

I've done my usual AD review of your draft prior to issuing IETF last
call and passing the I-D for IESG evaluation. The main purpose of the
review is to catch issues that might come up in later reviews and to
ensure that the document is ready for publication as and RFC.

I only have a small point that needs to be resolved in a new revision of
the document, so I will put it into "Revised I-D Needed" state in the
data tracker and wait to hear from you.

But I would also like the document shepherd to make an update to the
write-up as described below.

As always, all my comments are up for discussion and negotiation.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

===

The Shepherd write-up says...

> There is consensus in the WG to proceed with publication.

Looking at the mailing list, I see no comments positive or negative
during WG last call. What is more, I see no discussion of the I-D
going back four years (at which point I lost the will to search
further). How do you justify there being WG consensus for this document?

I think this issue can be resolved by a revision to the write-up with
some explanation of the justification for publishing this as a WG
document. I would also like the write-up to explain the purpose of the
document as discussed in the following point.

---

I was also unclear why you want to publish the document at all. I see a
note from Alvaro (extending the WG last call for an extra week) that
says:

> this document is being published as an Informational RFC for
> completeness purposes...as has been discussed in the mailing list and
> live meetings.

So I think that gives me the intended purpose: completeness. But I don't
know what that means, and the document doesn't help me at all.

Furthermore, I couldn't find the discussion of this intention to publish
on the mailing list.

Based on some conversations with Stewart, I understand that the idea
here is to capture the current state of discussions in the WG so that
they are not lost. But I also assume that the WG has no interest in
pursuing these ideas further. So it would be reasonable to add a
significant note to the Abstract and the Introduction about the
purpose. This would say something along the lines of...

  The idea is to capture the current state of discussions in the WG so
  that they are not lost, can be referenced, and might be picked up
  again later. The WG currently has no interest in pursuing these ideas
  further. It is not intended that this document as currently written
  should form the basis of an implementation or deployment.

With this in mind, my review is considerably lighter than it would be
for a standards track protocol specification, and I think the document
will be fine for advancement.

(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; it documents a valuable mechanism developed by the WG to provide full fast reroute coverage.

Yes, the title page indicates the correct type.

(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 describes a mechanism that provides fast reroute in an IP network through encapsulation to "not-via" addresses. A single level of encapsulation is used. The mechanism protects unicast, multicast and LDP traffic against link, router and shared risk group failure, regardless of network topology and metrics.

Working Group Summary:

No issues. There is consensus in the WG to proceed with publication.

Document Quality:

The document has no substantive issues.

Personnel:

Alvaro Retana is the Document Shepherd.

Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director. [Stewart Bryant is the AD assigned to the WG, but he is an author.]

(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 (currently in it's 9th iteration) has been thoroughly reviewed. Comments have been made by the Document Shepherd related to clarity, form and content. All comments have been addressed. The document is ready for publication.

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A

(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. The question has been raised throughout the process.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes, the document has IPR disclosures attached from the authors and a third party. No concerns have been raised in the WG.

(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?

This document has been a WG item for about 6 years. During this time the mechanism (and alternatives to it) have been discussed in depth. There is strong consensus to publish this document as an Informational RFC.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits.

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

N/A

(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?

None exist.

(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).

There are no IANA considerations which arise from this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(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.

N/A