> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
> This version is dated 1 November 2019.
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Standards Track
> Why is this the proper type of RFC?
The document defines RSVP related formats and behaviors.
> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes
> (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:
>
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
> introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
> there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
ITU-T Recommendation G.808.3 defines the generic aspects of a Shared
Mesh Protection (SMP) mechanism, where the difference between SMP and
Shared Mesh Restoration (SMR) is also identified. ITU-T
Recommendation G.873.3 defines the protection switching operation and
associated protocol for SMP at the Optical Data Unit (ODU) layer.
RFC 7412 provides requirements for any mechanism that would be used
to implement SMP in a Multi-Protocol Label Switching - Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) network.
This document updates RFC 4872 to provide the extensions to the
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to
support the control of the SMP.
> Working Group Summary:
>
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
> there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?
There was notable debate on how pre-emption is handled in the Shared
Mesh Protection signaling procedures. The authors addressed all of these
concerns by adding relevant text to the document.
> Document Quality:
>
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
> number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
> Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
> thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
> MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
> course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was
> the request posted?
The document has been discussed and reviewed thoroughly by the WG. While
there have been no official statements on implementation of this
new framework, some of the authors are from a vendor, and implementation
is expected.
> Personnel:
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd?
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> Who is the Responsible Area Director?
John Scudder
> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
> publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
> IESG.
The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document as part of normal WG progress
and WG last call. The Shepherd believes this 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.
> (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.
No specific concerns.
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, see:
Pre-WGLC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/xlUivOQ7W6UwjOqlOvZwF1onqH4/
Pre-Adoption: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/HmnoD_NCcFDBgdt7Xs1WJbK6rc8/
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
> so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.
No IPR disclosed.
> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
> silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
Solid among those who are interested. “Strong concurrence of a fair number
of individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.
> (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 seen.
> (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.
The document passes ID nits.
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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?
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.
Yes. This document updates RFC 4872. RFC 4872 is listed on the title page
header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction.
> (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 8126).
The IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd. All protocol
extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate
reservations in IANA registries.
> (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.
None.
> (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, YANG modules,
> etc.
N/A
> (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
> with any of the recommended validation tools
> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
> what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
> YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
> (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
There are no yang modules in this document.