Skip to main content

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