Skip to main content

Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
RFC 6178

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Harrington
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Ronald Bonica
2011-03-16
07 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-03-15
07 (System) RFC published
2011-01-04
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-01-04
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-01-04
07 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-01-03
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-01-03
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-01-03
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-01-03
07 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup.
2011-01-03
07 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-01-03
07 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2010-12-24
07 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2010-12-24
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-12-24
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-07.txt
2010-12-23
07 David Harrington [Ballot comment]
2010-12-23
07 David Harrington [Ballot discuss]
2010-12-23
07 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Harrington has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2010-12-17
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-12-16
2010-12-16
07 Amy Vezza State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation.
2010-12-16
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2010-12-16
07 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ron Bonica has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2010-12-16
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2010-12-16
07 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2010-12-16
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot comment]
I support Ron's DISCUSS and item #1 in David's DISCUSS
2010-12-16
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-16
07 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-16
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4:
>  Requirements for Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets

  This document isn't really about requirements, it specifies …
[Ballot comment]
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4:
>  Requirements for Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets

  This document isn't really about requirements, it specifies a required
  behavior. Suggest to drop "Requirements for" from the title.


INTRODUCTION, paragraph 7:
>    This document specifies how Label Edge Routers (LER) should behave
>    when determining whether to MPLS encapsulate an IP packet with header
>    options.

  Although it's clear from the the title that this document is for IPv4,
  it would be good to s/IP/IPv4/ throughout, for clarity.
2010-12-16
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Section 5.1., paragraph 3:
>    Further, IPv6 [RFC2460] makes use of extension headers not header
>    options and is …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 5.1., paragraph 3:
>    Further, IPv6 [RFC2460] makes use of extension headers not header
>    options and is therefore outside the scope of this document.

  DISCUSS-DISCUSS: I want to discuss this on the call, after which I
  will clear the DISCUSS. In other words, no author action required at
  this time: Is there a separate document in the works for IPv6? Or do
  we already have the required mechanism specified?
2010-12-16
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2010-12-16
07 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-16
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-12-15
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-06.txt
2010-12-15
07 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
I support Dave's first and Tim's discuss position.
2010-12-15
07 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-15
07 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
The conformance requirements could be stated more clearly.
In the abstract "invoked" seems to be the wrong word.  To me at least, it …
[Ballot comment]
The conformance requirements could be stated more clearly.
In the abstract "invoked" seems to be the wrong word.  To me at least, it implies that the
feature gets turned on as part of the protocol run. In light of the discuss issue, it also isn't
clear if it is mandatory to implement in any MPLS LSR, LER, or only implementations of
this document.
2010-12-15
07 Tim Polk [Ballot discuss]
Nice document in general. Thanks!

One simple but discuss-worthy issue:

Shouldn't this update RFCs 3031 and 3032?
2010-12-15
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2010-12-15
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-14
07 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-14
07 Ron Bonica
[Ballot discuss]
This document attempts to fill a very important gap in the the standards. I look forward to changing this DISCUSS to a YES …
[Ballot discuss]
This document attempts to fill a very important gap in the the standards. I look forward to changing this DISCUSS to a YES when the following issues are addressed:

- In order to implement a compliant version of MPLS, the authors must read this document. Therefore, this document UPDATES RFC 3031

- Is the scope of this document correct, or should we address all IETF encapsulation types (IP-in-IP, MPLS, IPEC). It seems that they should all work the same way. RFC 2003 (IP-in-IP) includes some very fuzzy language about IP options "generally" not being copied to the outer header, but it doesn't seem to have addressed the issue.

- Does encapsulation (of any type) scuttle the intent of some IP options. If so, we might want to drop some packets at the head end of the LSP rather than forwarding them without the intended per-hop processing.
2010-12-14
07 David Harrington
[Ballot discuss]
1) Why does this document not Update 3031 and 3032?

2) There is an assumption in this document that packets with IP options …
[Ballot discuss]
1) Why does this document not Update 3031 and 3032?

2) There is an assumption in this document that packets with IP options SHOULD be sent through MPLS.
But somebody put those options in. What if the operator deliberately wanted to have the IP options take
precedence over the MPLS encapsulation? The document does not discuss the security and operational
considerations of over-riding the IP options and pushing the packets into an MPLS tunnel.  For example,
  o Crafted IP strict and loose source route option packets that
      belong to a prefix-based FEC yet bypass MPLS encapsulation at a
      ingress LER may allow an authorized operator to specify explicit IP
      forwarding path(s) across an MPLS network and, thereby, achieve
      specific operational goals.
2010-12-14
07 David Harrington
[Ballot comment]
Please consider addressing the issues rasied in the TSVDIR review by James Polk:

I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area …
[Ballot comment]
Please consider addressing the issues rasied in the TSVDIR review by James Polk:

I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but
are copied to the document's authors for their information and to
allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider
this review together with any other last-call comments they receive.
Please always CC <mailto:tsv-dir@ietf.org>tsv-dir@ietf.org if you
reply to or forward this review.

Summary:
This is a well written, concise and needed modification to MPLS.

That said, I don't understand why the 1st minor issue below is
present. Recommend (fairly strongly) adding the

    "Document Updates: RFC 3031, RFC 3032"

as mentioned below on this first page of this RFC to be.


Transport Issues:
There are no issues


minor issues:
- S2 "Motivation", last sentence is

  "We believe that this document adds
  details that have not been fully addressed in [RFC3031] and [RFC3032]
  as well as complements [RFC3270], [RFC3443] and [RFC4950]. "

I find it surprising that this document does not formally update 3031
and 3032, given that it is mandatory to implement, optional to
invoke. ISTM, as an outsider to MPLS, this would in fact be the case
given the impact of/to IP stacks not adhering to this proposed standard.

- Section 5.2 is about Router Alert Options, and states "At the time
of this writing ...". I wonder if this subsection is valid, or needs
another review against this IntArea ID
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations-02
to still be valid in a month or two once the IntArea ID (currently in
WGLC) is processed by the IESG and RFC-Editor?

IMO - these two docs are progressing near enough to each other to
each consider what the other says - with or without a normative or
informative reference in either or both docs to the other.

[dbh: the draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations draft does reference the mpls-ip-options draft as an example of tunneling to avoid RAO. The two drafts are closely linked, and authors should watch closely to make sure they stay in sync through the approval/publication process.]

nits:
- I'm surprised to see the Abstract on page 2. I thought we
collectively fixed the case in which the Abstract can be on any page
other than page 1.

- at the page Footer, in the middle of the line, there isn't a "short
document name" - which has been there on all previous well formed IDs
and RFCs that I have seen (which of course is not all of them). It is
recommended the authors pick a short form name for the subject of
this doc for this location, such as

      LER Header Option Behaviors

- S3, 4th para, second to last sentence is:

  "First a downstream LSR may
  have not have sufficient IP routing information to forward the packet
  resulting in packet loss. "

recommend removing the first instance of "have". The sentence reads
better without it.

- S3, 4th para, last two sentences
list a "First" and a "Second" reason correctly, but are missing
required commas after each word (i.e., "First, ...", and "Second, ..." )

- S3, 5th para, 1st sentence is lacking commas here:

  "...FEC, yet are forwarded
  into an IP/MPLS network without being MPLS-encapsulated,
    present..."

- S5.1, last bullet has this:

  "...MPLS encapsulation at a ingress LER ..."
                          ^^^^^
s/a/an

James
2010-12-14
07 David Harrington
[Ballot discuss]
1) Why does this document not Update 3031 and 3032?

2) There is an assumption in this document that packets with IP options …
[Ballot discuss]
1) Why does this document not Update 3031 and 3032?

2) There is an assumption in this document that packets with IP options SHOULD be sent through MPLS. But somebody put those options in. What if the operator deliberately wanted to have the IP options take precedence over the MPLS encapsulation? The document does not discuss the security and operational considerations of over-riding the IP options and pushing the packets into an MPLS tunnel.  For example,
  o Crafted IP strict and loose source route option packets that
      belong to a prefix-based FEC yet bypass MPLS encapsulation at a
      ingress LER may allow an authorized operator to specify explicit IP
      forwarding path(s) across an MPLS network and, thereby, achieve
      specific operational goals.
2010-12-14
07 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2010-12-14
07 Ron Bonica
[Ballot comment]
- In the introduction, you say

"The IP packet header provides for various IP options as originally specified in [RFC791]."

Not …
[Ballot comment]
- In the introduction, you say

"The IP packet header provides for various IP options as originally specified in [RFC791]."

Not all options are defined in 791. Some are defined in RFCs 1191, 1385, 1393, 2213, and 4782.

- In the introduction, you say

"IP options extend the IP packet header length beyond the minimum of 20 octets.  As a result, IP  packets received with header options are typically handled as exceptions and in a less efficient manner due to their variable length and complex processing requirements.  For example, many router implementations, punt such IP option packets from the hardware forwarding (fast) path into the software forwarding (slow) path causing high CPU utilization."

Even when the forwarding plane can parse a variable length header, it still needs to punt to the control plane, because the forwarding plane may not have the clock cycles or intelligence required to process the option.

- in the introduction, your use of the word "transparent" is imprecise. Transparent means that you can see one thing through another (e.g., glass is transparent). IP options are not transparent when encapsulated in MPLS. MPLS would be transparent if you could see the IP header through it.

- In Section 4, you say:

When processing of signaling messages or data packets with more specific forwarding rules is enabled, this policy  SHOULD NOT alter the specific processing rules.

What are these more specific forwarding rules?
2010-12-14
07 Ron Bonica
[Ballot comment]
- In the introduction, you say

"The IP packet header provides for various IP options as originally specified in [RFC791]."

Not …
[Ballot comment]
- In the introduction, you say

"The IP packet header provides for various IP options as originally specified in [RFC791]."

Not all options are defined in 791. Some are defined in RFCs 1191, 1385, 1393, 2213, and 4782.

- In the introduction, you say

"IP options extend the IP packet header length beyond the minimum of 20 octets.  As a result, IP  packets received with header options are typically handled as exceptions and in a less efficient manner due to their variable length and complex processing requirements.  For example, many router implementations, punt such IP option packets from the hardware forwarding (fast) path into the software forwarding (slow) path causing high CPU utilization."

Even when the forwarding plane can parse a variable length header, it still needs to punt to the control plane, because the forwarding plane may not have the clock cycles or intelligence required to process the option.

- in the introduction, your use of the word "transparent" is imprecise. Transparent means that you can see one thing through another (e.g., glass is transparent). IP options are not transparent when encapsulated in MPLS. MPLS would be transparent if you could see the IP header through it.
2010-12-14
07 Ron Bonica
[Ballot comment]
- In the introduction, you say

"The IP packet header provides for various IP options as originally specified in [RFC791]."

Not …
[Ballot comment]
- In the introduction, you say

"The IP packet header provides for various IP options as originally specified in [RFC791]."

Not all options are defined in 791. Some are defined in RFCs 1191, 1385, 1393, 2213, and 4782.

- In the introduction, you say

"IP options extend the IP packet header length beyond the minimum of 20 octets.  As a result, IP  packets received with header options are typically handled as exceptions and in a less efficient manner due to their variable length and complex processing requirements.  For example, many router implementations, punt such IP option packets from the hardware forwarding (fast) path into the software forwarding (slow) path causing high CPU utilization."

Even when the forwarding plane can parse a variable length header, it still needs to punt to the control plane, because the forwarding plane may not have the clock cycles or intelligence required to process the option.
2010-12-14
07 Ron Bonica
[Ballot comment]
- In the introduction, you say

"The IP packet header provides for various IP options as originally specified in [RFC791]."

Not …
[Ballot comment]
- In the introduction, you say

"The IP packet header provides for various IP options as originally specified in [RFC791]."

Not all options are defined in 791. Some are defined in RFCs 1191, 1385, 1393, 2213, and 4782.
2010-12-14
07 Ron Bonica
[Ballot discuss]
This document attempts to fill a very important gap in the the standards. I look forward to changing this DISCUSS to a YES …
[Ballot discuss]
This document attempts to fill a very important gap in the the standards. I look forward to changing this DISCUSS to a YES when the following issues are addressed:

- In order to implement a compliant version of MPLS, the authors must read this document. Therefore, this document UPDATES RFC 3031
2010-12-14
07 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2010-12-13
07 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-13
07 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-13
07 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot comment]
In Section 4. Ingress Label Edge Router Requirement

"Further, how an ingress LER processes the IP header options of packets before MPLS encapsulation …
[Ballot comment]
In Section 4. Ingress Label Edge Router Requirement

"Further, how an ingress LER processes the IP header options of packets before MPLS encapsulation is out of scope since the IP packets are received as they enter the MPLS domain."

The IP packet is not actually received in the IP component of the LSR, it is forwarded.

You could delete "since the IP packets are received as they enter the MPLS domain.", or perhaps say "since these are processed before they enter the MPLS domain."
2010-12-12
07 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-10
07 David Harrington Request for Telechat review by TSVDIR Completed. Reviewer: James Polk.
2010-12-08
07 David Harrington Request for Telechat review by TSVDIR is assigned to James Polk
2010-12-08
07 David Harrington Request for Telechat review by TSVDIR is assigned to James Polk
2010-12-02
07 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-12-16
2010-12-02
07 Adrian Farrel State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2010-12-02
07 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2010-12-02
07 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2010-12-02
07 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2010-11-30
07 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2010-11-22
07 Amanda Baber We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions.
2010-11-22
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Larry Zhu
2010-11-22
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Larry Zhu
2010-11-16
07 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2010-11-16
07 Cindy Morgan
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <mpls@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt> (Requirements for Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets'
  <draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt> as a 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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-11-30. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options/
2010-11-16
07 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested
2010-11-16
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-11-16
07 (System) Last call text was added
2010-11-16
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-11-16
07 Adrian Farrel State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup.
2010-11-16
07 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2010-11-16
07 Adrian Farrel Last Call text changed
2010-11-15
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-11-15
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt
2010-10-29
07 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel
2010-10-29
07 Adrian Farrel
AD Review


I have performed an AD review of your draft.

Don't panic!

I review all drafts that I am responsible for before putting them …
AD Review


I have performed an AD review of your draft.

Don't panic!

I review all drafts that I am responsible for before putting them
forward for IETF last call. The main objective is to catch nits and
minor issues that would show up during the last call or in IESG
review. The intention is to help polish your document and make sure
it is clean and shiny so that other reviewers will stick to the
technical details.

Thanks you for a really important document! It is well-written and

I am particularly grateful for the effort you put into the Security
section.

On reviewing it, there are a couple of small points I think it would
be helpful to sort out to ensure complete understanding from all your
readers. I'd like to see a quick respin of the document before I issue
the IETF last call. As soon as I see a new revision posted (the gate
for submissions re-opens on Monday 8th November), I'll set the ball
in motion.

Of course, all of my issues are up for discussion.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

===

Am I being too picky?
The Abstract says...

  IP option packets that belong to a prefix-based FEC but fail to be
  MPLS encapsulated simply due to their header options present a
  security risk against the MPLS infrastructure.

Failure to be encapsulated could cover being dropped on the floor, or
generating ICMP. I think you mean "forwarded into an IP/MPLS network
without being MPLS-encapsulated"

Ditto Section 3.

---

Section 2 says that you are updating RFC 3031. Is this the case? If so,
this should be reflected in the document header.

---

Please use "and" instead of "&"

---

Section 3

  Such deployments often
  minimize the IP routing information (e.g., no BGP transit routes)
  carried by LSRs since not necessary for MPLS forwarding of transit
  packets.

"...since it is not..."

---

Acronyms

Generally a sterling job!
Can you expand LER on first usage in the body text (yes, I know it is
in the Abstract, but you have to do it again in the main text).

---

Section 4

  The policy also prevents specific option types such as
  Router Alert (option value 148), for example, from forcing MPLS
  imposition of the MPLS Router Alert Label (label value 1) at ingress
  LERs.

Delete "for example". You already have "such as"

---

Section 7

A harmless section, but unusual in this type of document and can be
safely removed.

---
2010-10-29
07 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel
2010-10-29
07 Cindy Morgan
(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
    …
(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?

George Swallow, MPLS WG Co-Chair, is the Document Shepherd.  The Document
Shepherd
personally reviewed the Document and believes
this version (04) is ready for forwarding 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 was appropriately discussed during Working Group Last Call.
The Document Shepherd believes that the Document has had adequate review.


(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?

The Document Shepherd does not have concerns on these matters.


(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.

The Document Shepherd does not have any issue nor concern with the Document.

(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?

While the document was appropriately discussed during Working Group Last Call.
There is good support for this draft.  There was some discussion of whether this

Should go forward as an informational draft.  The WG consensus was to have it on
the
Standards track.  The arguments for standards track were as follows.

1. Some service providers run an internet-route free core. Options not
MPLS encapsulated at the edge are dropped in the core (1st LSR) since there is
no
associated IP route in the LSR's IP routing table. So LERs that cannot
MPLS encap IP options pkts are causing blackholing of packets containing IP
options.
Further, unlike the situation with TTL and DSCP values, an MPLS LER that cannot
MPLS
encapsulate IP options will not be able to work in some MPLS networks.. 

2. Further, the processing of ip-option can have significant security
implications for MPLS
networks.  These are further described in the security section of the document.


(1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarize 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 strong or extreme position was raised against the Document.


(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.
<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?  If the document
        does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
        the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document has been verified to pass idnits.  The Document does not contain
content that would
require specific review, beyond what has already been done up to now.

(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].

The Document has two References Sections (Normative and Informative).

All normative references are to RFCs.  There are no down references.


(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
        Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
        document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
        Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
        the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The Document has an IANA Secion. The Document makes no requests of IANA.


(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 section of the Document is written -and would need to be written- in
a given 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
          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.

Requirements for Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
specifies how Label Edge Routers (LER) should behave
when determining whether to MPLS encapsulate an IP packet with header
options.  Lack of a formal standard has resulted in different LER
forwarding behaviors for IP packets with header options despite being
associated with a prefix-based Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC).
IP option packets that belong to a prefix-based FEC but fail to be
MPLS encapsulated simply due to their header options present a
security risk against the MPLS infrastructure. Further, LERs that are
unable to MPLS encapsulate IP packets with header options cannot
operate in certain MPLS environments.  While this newly defined LER
behavior is mandatory to implement, it is optional to invoke.




        Working Group Summary
          Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
          For example, was there controversy about particular points
          or were there decisions where the consensus was
          particularly rough?

Nothing worth noting, except that there was some discussion of whether this
should go forward as an informational draft.  The WG consensus was to have it on
the
Standards track.


        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, 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?

This is not a protocol extension but implementations of the described mechanism
may exist.  The document quality is good as well as the review.


        Personnel
          Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
          Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
          experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
          in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

George Swallow is the Document Shepherd
Adrian Farrel is the responsible Area Director
2010-10-29
07 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2010-10-29
07 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'George Swallow (swallow@cisco.com) is the Document Shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-05-21
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-04.txt
2010-01-06
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-03.txt
2010-01-03
07 (System) Document has expired
2009-07-03
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-02.txt
2008-12-11
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-01.txt
2008-12-10
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-00.txt