Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document specifies an architectural framework for the application of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) to the construction of packet-switched transport networks. It describes a common set of protocol functions -- the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) -- that supports the operational models and capabilities typical of such networks, including signaled or explicitly provisioned bidirectional connection-oriented paths, protection and restoration mechanisms, comprehensive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions, and network operation in the absence of a dynamic control plane or IP forwarding support. Some of these functions are defined in existing MPLS specifications, while others require extensions to existing specifications to meet the requirements of the MPLS-TP.

This document defines the subset of the MPLS-TP applicable in general and to point-to-point transport paths. The remaining subset, applicable specifically to point-to-multipoint transport paths, is outside the scope of this document.

This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.')

[Ballot discuss]
(with editorial updates)

Before approving this document I would like to make a few  clarifications concerning the following in Section 3.14 Network Management:

> The Network Management System (NMS) is used to
  provision and manage an end-to-end connection across a network where
  some segments are created/managed by, for example, Netconf [RFC4741]
  or SNMP [RFC3411] and other segments by XML or CORBA interfaces.
  Maintenance operations are run on a connection (LSP or PW) in a
  manner that is independent of the provisioning mechanism.  An MPLS-TP
  NE is not required to offer more than one standard management
  interface. 

1. From section 1.1 we get that using an NMS for provisioning is just one option, another being the usage af an CLI. Consequently I think that this section should say 'The Network Management System (NMS) can be used' rahter than 'The Network Management System (NMS) is used '
2. Mentioning XML here is quite inconsistent - it's a language to represent information and not a protocol or framework for management as SNMP, Netconf, or CORBA. Netconf is already working with XML actually. I suggest to drop mentioning XML here.
3. I suggest to re-write the last sentence as a positive statement:
s/An MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one standard management interface./An MPLS-TP NE is required to offer at least one standard management interface for interoperable management./

[Ballot discuss]
Before approving this document I would like to make a couple of clarifications concerning the following in Section 3.14 Network Management:

> The Network Management System (NMS) is used to
  provision and manage an end-to-end connection across a network where
  some segments are created/managed by, for example, Netconf [RFC4741]
  or SNMP [RFC3411] and other segments by XML or CORBA interfaces.
  Maintenance operations are run on a connection (LSP or PW) in a
  manner that is independent of the provisioning mechanism.  An MPLS-TP
  NE is not required to offer more than one standard management
  interface. 

1. From section 1.1 we get that using an NMS for provisioning is just one option, another being the usage af an CLI. Consequently I think that this section should say 'The Network Management System (NMS) can be used' rahter than 'The Network Management System (NMS) is used '
2. Mentioning XML here is quite inconsistent - it's a language to represent information and not a protocol or framework for management as SNMP, Netconf, or CORBA. Netconf is already working with XML actually. I suggest to drop mentioning XML here.
3. I suggest to re-write the last sentence as a positive statement:
s/An MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one standard management interface./An MPLS-TP is required to offer at least one standard management interface for interoperable management./

[Ballot comment]
I'm just asking for a reference:

The 1st sentence in the security considerations is:

The introduction of MPLS-TP into transport networks means that the
security considerations applicable to both MPLS and PWE3 apply to
those transport networks.

Can we add references for MPLS and PWE3?  Maybe RFC 3031 for MPLS and RFC 3985 for PWE3?  So it reads:

The introduction of MPLS-TP into transport networks means that the
security considerations applicable to both MPLS [RFC3985] and
PWE3 [RFC3301] apply to those transport networks.

The MPLS WG requests that:
  A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks
  draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11

is published as an informational RFC with IETF consensus.

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
>      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
>      document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
>      version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready to be
forwarded to the IESG for publication.

> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>      and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
>      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>      have been performed?

The document has been reviewed in
- mpls, ccamp and pwe3 working groups
- the ITU-T MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Team
- the ITU-T SG15, Q9, Q10, Q12 and Q14.

The shephered is convinced that this is sufficient review for this
framework document.

> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>      AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>      issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>      been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
>      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
>      this issue.

No such concerns. There is no IPR claim for this draft.

> (1.e) 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?

The mpls-tp project is a joint project between IEIT and ITU-T, this document
has been on focus when we sorted out differences between IETF and ITU-T
perspectives. The shepherd is not aware of any unresolved issues.

> (1.f) 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
>      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats or extreme discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
>      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
>      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
>      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>      Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Checks are almost clean. There is one instance of a 72 charaacter line,
this will be fixed in the update after the IETF last call.

> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
>      informative? 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
>      strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
>      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
>      so, list these downward references to support the Area
>      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are correctly split.

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>      of the document? If the document specifies protocol
>      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>      registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
>      the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>      proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>      procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
>      reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
>      document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>      conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
>      can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There are no IANA actions requested by this document.

> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>      an automated checker?

No such formal language.

> (1.k) 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

1.1.  Motivation and Background

  The document describes an architectural framework to use MPLS
  for packet-switched transport networks.  It specifies a set of
  protocol functions that meet the requirements in [RFC5654]. These
  protocol functions constitute a MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
  for point-to-point transport paths.
  The remaining MPLS-TP functions, applicable specifically to point-to-
  multipoint transport paths, are outside the scope of this document.

  Optical transport infrastructure, e.g. SONET/SDH and OTN are known to
  provide reliable functionality and operational simplicity. It is the
  intention that the set of protocol specifications produced by the MPLS-TP
  project shall provide the same level of reliability and simplicity

Working Group Summary

  Since the document is an output from the MPLS-TP project it is the
  joint output of several IETF working groups and Qustion 9, 10, 12 and
  14 of ITU-T SG15.

Document Quality

The document is well reviewed in all the groups mentioned above.