A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks
RFC 6375
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
04 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable efficient and accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable efficient and accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS networks are defined in RFC 6374. The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet- switched transport networks. This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay, and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the specific requirements of MPLS-TP. 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.') |
|
2016-11-30
|
04 | (System) | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVDIR with state 'Unknown' |
|
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner |
|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Wesley Eddy |
|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Adrian Farrel |
|
2011-09-21
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2011-09-18
|
04 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2011-08-04
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Approval announcement text changed |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-08-03
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
|
2011-08-01
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
|
2011-07-20
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Approval announcement text changed |
|
2011-07-20
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-07-20
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-07-20
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-07-19
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-07-19
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] This Discuss position is just to hold the document until the second IETF last call completes (being held because of IPR issues) |
|
2011-07-19
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
|
2011-07-19
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-04.txt |
|
2011-07-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2011-07-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | 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: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay-profile-03.txt> (A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks' <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03.txt> as an Informational RFC This is a second last call. The last call is only necessary because of a late-received IPR disclosure. 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 2011-08-01. 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 Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS networks are defined in RFC XXXX. The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet- switched transport networks. This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay, and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the specific requirements of MPLS-TP. 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 Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF Last Call. [RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published RFC has IETF consensus.] [RFC Editor, please replace XXXX with the RFC number assigned to draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay.] The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1583/ |
|
2011-07-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last Call was requested |
|
2011-07-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed. |
|
2011-07-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last Call text changed |
|
2011-06-30
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
|
2011-06-30
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation. |
|
2011-06-30
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] Updated DISCUSS - dropping my former #2 as the editors convinced me the text I was looking for is already there. 1. I … [Ballot discuss] Updated DISCUSS - dropping my former #2 as the editors convinced me the text I was looking for is already there. 1. I am a little puzzled by this Internet-Draft. Let me copy section 2: > 2. MPLS-TP Measurement Considerations > Several of the considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] > can be disregarded in the more restrictive context of MPLS-TP: > o Equal Cost Multipath considerations (Section 2.7.3 of > [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]) > o Considerations for direct LM in the presence of Label Switched > Paths constructed via the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) or > utilizing Penultimate Hop Popping (Section 2.7.6 of > [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]) First, the version [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] is two versions back the latest one which is also on the agenda of the IESG telechat. The ECM considerations now belong to Section 2.9.3, and the direct LM considerations belong to section 2.9.8. My principal question is however - are these the only two considerations that can be ignored from [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] and everything else applies? If this is the case I would suggest to include clear text that says it. 2. As with [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] I have reservations about the lack of manageability considerations. The only paragraph that deals with manageability is: > The assumption of this profile is that the devices involved in a measurement operation are configured for measurement by a means external to the measurement protocols themselves, for example via a Network Management System (NMS) or separate configuration protocol. This is too little. It tells nothing about any data model to be used (MIB or YANG module), or about how the results of the measurement are being retrieved from the routers/switches. Moreover, as such a protocol is not mentioned in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] the security considerations section need to talk about the need for aunthenticated and privacy protected communications between the NMS and the routers/switches. |
|
2011-06-30
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] 1. I am a little puzzled by this Internet-Draft. Let me copy section 2: > 2. MPLS-TP Measurement Considerations > Several of the … [Ballot discuss] 1. I am a little puzzled by this Internet-Draft. Let me copy section 2: > 2. MPLS-TP Measurement Considerations > Several of the considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] > can be disregarded in the more restrictive context of MPLS-TP: > o Equal Cost Multipath considerations (Section 2.7.3 of > [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]) > o Considerations for direct LM in the presence of Label Switched > Paths constructed via the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) or > utilizing Penultimate Hop Popping (Section 2.7.6 of > [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]) First, the version [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] is two versions back the latest one which is also on the agenda of the IESG telechat. The ECM considerations now belong to Section 2.9.3, and the direct LM considerations belong to section 2.9.8. My principal question is however - are these the only two considerations that can be ignored from [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] and everything else applies? If this is the case I would suggest to include clear text that says it. 2. As with [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] I have reservations about the lack of manageability considerations. The only paragraph that deals with manageability is: > The assumption of this profile is that the devices involved in a measurement operation are configured for measurement by a means external to the measurement protocols themselves, for example via a Network Management System (NMS) or separate configuration protocol. This is too little. It tells nothing about any data model to be used (MIB or YANG module), or about how the results of the measurement are being retrieved from the routers/switches. Moreover, as such a protocol is not mentioned in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] the security considerations section need to talk about the need for aunthenticated and privacy protected communications between the NMS and the routers/switches. |
|
2011-06-30
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot comment] I'm changing from DISCUSS to No Objection, because I think it's sufficient to address any possible concerns with the throughput metrics via the … [Ballot comment] I'm changing from DISCUSS to No Objection, because I think it's sufficient to address any possible concerns with the throughput metrics via the draft-mpls-loss-delay document that this one refers to. |
|
2011-06-30
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Wesley Eddy has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-06-30
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Wassim Haddad on 29-Jun-2011 suggested one editorial improvement: Page 1: Abstract: remove _the_ efficient and accurate measurement |
|
2011-06-30
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-30
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03 | |
|
2011-06-29
|
04 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-29
|
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-29
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] This ought to be easy enough to answer and is tied up in a discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay: It wasn't clear to me … [Ballot discuss] This ought to be easy enough to answer and is tied up in a discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay: It wasn't clear to me in draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay that all of the "mandatory" TLV objects MUST be supported and if any of the "optional" TLV object should also be supported. If they are, then this can go away. If not, shouldn't this draft say which TLV objects are required? |
|
2011-06-29
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-29
|
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot discuss] The DISCUSS topic on draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay with throughput measurement not being well enough specified applies to this document as well, since it references throughput … [Ballot discuss] The DISCUSS topic on draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay with throughput measurement not being well enough specified applies to this document as well, since it references throughput in the abstract and introduction but provides no detail on this measurement. |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] Please expand LM at first occurence. |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] 1. I am a little puzzled by this Internet-Draft. Let me copy section 2: > 2. MPLS-TP Measurement Considerations > Several of the … [Ballot discuss] 1. I am a little puzzled by this Internet-Draft. Let me copy section 2: > 2. MPLS-TP Measurement Considerations > Several of the considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] > can be disregarded in the more restrictive context of MPLS-TP: > o Equal Cost Multipath considerations (Section 2.7.3 of > [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]) > o Considerations for direct LM in the presence of Label Switched > Paths constructed via the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) or > utilizing Penultimate Hop Popping (Section 2.7.6 of > [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay]) First, the version [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] is two versions back the latest one which is also on the agenda of the IESG telechat. The ECM considerations now belong to Section 2.9.3, and the direct LM considerations belong to section 2.9.8. My principal question is however - are these the only two considerations that can be ignored from [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] and everything else applies? If this is the case I would suggest to include clear text that says it. 2. The measurement profiles defined in sections 3 and 4 define a restricted set of parameters and modes that need to be configured in a specific manner. Are these the only parameters that need to be configured in a different manner for MPLS-TP and all the rest of the parameters and modes defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] can be configured in any way the operator choses to? If this is the case I would suggest to include clear text that says it. 3. As with [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] I have reservations about the lack of manageability considerations. The only paragraph that deals with manageability is: > The assumption of this profile is that the devices involved in a measurement operation are configured for measurement by a means external to the measurement protocols themselves, for example via a Network Management System (NMS) or separate configuration protocol. This is too little. It tells nothing about any data model to be used (MIB or YANG module), or about how the results of the measurement are being retrieved from the routers/switches. Moreover, as such a protocol is not mentioned in [I-D.ietf-mpls-loss-delay] the security considerations section need to talk about the need for aunthenticated and privacy protected communications between the NMS and the routers/switches. |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I dunno what security mechanisms are available for use in an MPLS-TP environment, but if there are some that are not available outside … [Ballot comment] I dunno what security mechanisms are available for use in an MPLS-TP environment, but if there are some that are not available outside that environment, then it might be good to mention those here. |
|
2011-06-28
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-23
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. |
|
2011-06-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Telechat date has been changed to 2011-06-30 from 2011-07-14 |
|
2011-06-17
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
|
2011-06-17
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
|
2011-06-17
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Stephen Kent was rejected |
|
2011-06-17
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded |
|
2011-06-17
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Telechat date has been changed to 2011-07-14 from 2011-06-23 |
|
2011-06-15
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
|
2011-06-15
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
|
2011-06-10
|
04 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Henk Uijterwaal |
|
2011-06-10
|
04 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Henk Uijterwaal |
|
2011-06-09
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-06-23 |
|
2011-06-09
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Area acronym has been changed to rtg from gen |
|
2011-06-01
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent |
|
2011-06-01
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent |
|
2011-06-01
|
04 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
|
2011-06-01
|
04 | 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-tp-loss-delay-profile-03.txt> (A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks' <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03.txt> as an 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 2011-06-15. 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 Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS networks are defined in RFC XXXX. The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet- switched transport networks. This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay, and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the specific requirements of MPLS-TP. 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 Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF Last Call. [RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published RFC has IETF consensus.] [RFC Editor, please replace XXXX with the RFC number assigned to draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay.] The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2011-06-01
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested |
|
2011-06-01
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
|
2011-06-01
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call text changed |
|
2011-05-27
|
04 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
|
2011-05-27
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2011-05-27
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
|
2011-05-27
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-05-27
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2011-05-27
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2011-05-27
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2011-05-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-05-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
|
2011-05-20
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The MPLS WG requests that: A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03 is published as an informational … The MPLS WG requests that: A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03 is published as an informational RFC. This document is supposed be publsied as an IETF consensus document (IETF Last call). Note: We are at the same time requesting publication for: Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay-02 These two draft started out as a single draft, but the working group decided to split them into two separate draft. One generic MPLS draft and one specific for MPLS based transport Networks. It is not strictly necessary, but recommended, to progress these two draft in parallel. > (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 the mpls working group and in the ITU-T SG15 as part of the joint MPLS-TP project 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? There is a good consensus around this draft. > (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? The nits tool does give some warnings, these can be address as we resolve comments during the AD, IESG and IETF review process. > (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 allocations 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 This document is based on draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay and makes necessary adaptions of the one and two-way packet loss and delay performance metrics for MPLS based transport Networks. Working Group Summary This document is a MPLS working group document, and part of the MPLS-TP project. Meaning that it has been reviewed by ITU-T SG15 as part of the working group last call process. Document Quality The document is well reviewed in the MPLS working group and SG15. |
|
2011-05-20
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
|
2011-05-20
|
04 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the Document Shepherd.' added |
|
2011-04-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03.txt |
|
2011-02-04
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-02.txt |
|
2010-12-24
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-01.txt |
|
2010-12-23
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-00.txt |