Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Networks Using Entropy Labels (ELs)
RFC 8012
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute are methods used to test … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) paths. Ping is known as a connectivity-verification method and traceroute is known as a fault-isolation method, as described in RFC 4379. When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described in RFC 6790, the ability for LSP ping and traceroute operations to discover and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where Label Switching Routers (LSRs) apply different load-balancing techniques. One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL-based load balancing while other LSRs apply load balancing that is not EL based (e.g., IP). Another scenario is when an EL-based LSP is stitched with another LSP that can be EL based or not EL based. This document extends the MPLS LSP ping and traceroute multipath mechanisms in RFC 6424 to allow the ability of exercising LSPs that make use of the EL. This document updates RFC 6790.') |
|
2016-11-07
|
05 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8012, changed title to 'Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Networks … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8012, changed title to 'Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Networks Using Entropy Labels (ELs)', changed abstract to 'Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) paths. Ping is known as a connectivity-verification method and traceroute is known as a fault-isolation method, as described in RFC 4379. When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described in RFC 6790, the ability for LSP ping and traceroute operations to discover and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where Label Switching Routers (LSRs) apply different load-balancing techniques. One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL-based load balancing while other LSRs apply load balancing that is not EL based (e.g., IP). Another scenario is when an EL-based LSP is stitched with another LSP that can be EL based or not EL based.', changed pages to 23, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2016-11-07, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created updates relation between draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping and RFC 6790) |
|
2016-11-07
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2016-11-03
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8012">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2016-10-23
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8012">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2016-09-16
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2016-09-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2016-09-14
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2016-09-14
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2016-09-14
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC |
|
2016-09-13
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from In Progress |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-09-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-09-05
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2016-09-05
|
05 | Carlos Pignataro | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2016-09-05
|
05 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-05.txt |
|
2016-09-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2016-09-01
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
|
2016-09-01
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the updated text in your draft version to address my prior discuss questions. |
|
2016-09-01
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2016-09-01
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Just to note that there's an editorial change that was agreed [1] as a result of the secdir review that has still to … [Ballot comment] Just to note that there's an editorial change that was agreed [1] as a result of the secdir review that has still to be made. (No big deal, just noting it in case it gets forgotten.) [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06754.html |
|
2016-09-01
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] As Scott mentioned in his review, I also think that the following sentence needs more discussion: "All LSRs along the LSP need to … [Ballot comment] As Scott mentioned in his review, I also think that the following sentence needs more discussion: "All LSRs along the LSP need to be able to understand the new flags and the new multipath information type." How can you ever know if this is true? Isn't the whole problem that you don't know what different LSRs implement? |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] As noted by Scott Bradner in his OPS DIR review, 2 issues worth addressing IMO. I did an OPS-DIR review of Label Switched … [Ballot comment] As noted by Scott Bradner in his OPS DIR review, 2 issues worth addressing IMO. I did an OPS-DIR review of Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL) (draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04) The draft extends the existing MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute multipath mechanisms to support LSPs that use an Entropy Label. The primary operational impact of this technology is to provide an additional tool for network operators to debug their networks - a good thing. I found the draft a bit hard to follow, it seems to be more a collection of data points than a clear narrative but I do not think it is worth a rewrite to make it easier to understand. I found one thing that raises an operational concern - the next to last paragraph in section 2 says: “All LSRs along the LSP need to be able to understand the new flags and the new multipath information type.” But I do not see a mechanism discussed to check to see if that is the case (like the high order two bits of IPv6 options). If there is a mechanism it might be good to describe it, if there is not, a statement that verifying this condition is outside of the scope of the draft would be helpful The same paragraph goes on to say “It is also required that the initiating LSR can select both the IP destination address and label to use when transmitting MPLS echo request packets.” It might be helpful to say under what conditions this is or is not the case. Otherwise, the draft seems ready for publication. |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Just a nit: It would be nice to move Section 10 towards the front of the document. I know there are a couple … [Ballot comment] Just a nit: It would be nice to move Section 10 towards the front of the document. I know there are a couple of references to it, but knowing upfront the scope would be helpful to any reader. |
|
2016-08-31
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2016-08-30
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2016-08-30
|
04 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2016-08-30
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2016-08-30
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Editorial observations from Peter (in his Gen-ART review) are worth noting before final sending of this draft to the RFC Editor. |
|
2016-08-30
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2016-08-29
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] The description of what is added in this draft in the Security Considerations section is good, but aren't there additional security considerations (risks) … [Ballot discuss] The description of what is added in this draft in the Security Considerations section is good, but aren't there additional security considerations (risks) with this addition? This document extends the LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms to discover and exercise ECMP paths when an LSP uses ELI/EL in the label stack. Additional processing is required for responder and initiator nodes. The responder node that pushes ELI/EL will need to compute and return multipath data including associated EL. The initiator node will need to store and handle both IP multipath and label multipath information, and include destination IP addresses and/or ELs in MPLS echo request packets as well as in multipath information sent to downstream nodes. BTW, the above is a nice description that would have been nice to see sooner in the text. The draft then says: This document does not itself introduce any new security considerations. Isn't there anything that should be said about risks with the extended capabilities to discover and exercise ECMP paths? Does this help network reconnaissance? Does it help attackers to have this additional information? If it doesn't, please explain why and that will clear up this discuss or adding text would be good. Thanks. |
|
2016-08-29
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2016-08-29
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2016-08-27
|
04 | Peter Yee | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. |
|
2016-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot comment] As noted on the list discussion, the chairs, authors, and I discussed "what is an update": https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/c1lVXUC6xruy0hvl5i5GzSKUVwE We concluded the document only really … [Ballot comment] As noted on the list discussion, the chairs, authors, and I discussed "what is an update": https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/c1lVXUC6xruy0hvl5i5GzSKUVwE We concluded the document only really updates RFC6790 as the update isn't mandatory for the "general" lsp-ping RFCs to implement. The authors will correct this on their next respin. |
|
2016-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2016-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2016-08-26
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2016-08-25
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2016-08-25
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2016-08-22
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-08-22
|
04 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21 subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ a single, new TLV will be registered as follows: Sub-Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Sub-TLV Name: Entropy label FEC Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the DS Flags subregistry also in he Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ two new DS flags will be registered as follows: Bit Number: [ TBD-at-registration ] Name: E: ELI/EL push indicator Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Bit Number: [ TBD-at-registration ] Name: L: Label-based load balance indicator Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Third, in the Multipath Type subregistry also in he Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ a single, new multipath type will be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Meaning: IP and label set Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
|
2016-08-19
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
|
2016-08-19
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
|
2016-08-16
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
|
2016-08-16
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
|
2016-08-15
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2016-08-15
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2016-08-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-08-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, loa@pi.nu Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt> (Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)' <draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt> as 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 2016-08-26. 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 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) paths. Ping is known as a connectivity verification method and Traceroute as a fault isolation method, as described in RFC 4379. When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described in RFC 6790, the ability for LSP Ping and Traceroute operations to discover and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where LSRs apply different load balancing techniques. One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL-based load balancing while other LSRs apply non-EL based load balancing (e.g., IP). Another scenario is when an EL- based LSP is stitched with another LSP which can be EL-based or non- EL based. This document extends the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute multipath mechanisms in RFC 6424 to allow the ability of exercising LSPs which make use of the EL. This document updates RFC 4379, RFC 6424, and RFC 6790. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2802/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2305/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2546/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2221/ |
|
2016-08-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2016-08-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-09-01 |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-08-11
|
04 | Andy Malis | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-04.txt |
|
2016-08-09
|
03 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Acee Lindem. |
|
2016-08-03
|
03 | Xian Zhang | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
|
2016-08-03
|
03 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
|
2016-08-03
|
03 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
|
2016-08-01
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
|
2016-07-11
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Acee Lindem |
|
2016-07-11
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Acee Lindem |
|
2016-06-16
|
03 | Loa Andersson | The MPLS Working Group requests publication of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping as a document on the standards track. As required by RFC 4858, this is the current … The MPLS Working Group requests publication of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping as a document on the standards track. As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? We request that the document is published as a Proposed Standard. This is a protocol specification and make IANA allocations from Standards actions registries, Proposed Standard is the correct type for this document. consensus (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute are used to exercise specific paths of ECMP. When the LSP is setup to use the Entropy Label as described in RFC 6790, the ability for LSP Ping and Traceroute operation to discover and exercise ECMP paths has been lost in scenarios which LSRs apply deviating load balance techniques. One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL based load balancing while other LSRs apply non-EL based load balancing. Another scenario is when EL based LSP is stitched with another LSP which can be EL based or non-EL based. This document extends the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms to restore the ability of exercising specific paths of ECMP over LSP which make use of the Entropy Label. Working Group Summary The working group process was smooth, but generated quite a bit of discussion, all the discussion was focused on how to support the solution specified in the document. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, 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? We know of implementations of this draft. An implementation poll has been started and the shepherd write-up will be updated if and when further information is received. Personnel Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The review by the shepherd has follow quite a normal flow. Reviewed once when the document was first posted as an d individual draft, once before mpls-rt review and adoption poll. and one more time prior to wglc, and to verify that the updates from wglc has been correctly captured. The IANA section has be reviewed a couple of times outside the review of the entire document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. RFC 4379 and RFC 6424, are updated by this document this needs to be captured e.g. by the current effort consolidated RFC 4379, RFC 6424 are being merged into 4379bis. It is likely that because of the updates to RFC 4379 (as well as other updates) we will chose not to request publication of rfc4379bis as an Internet Standard. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes! Each author has stated on the mpls wg mailing list that they are unaware of any other IPR than those that thas been disclosed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes, there are IPR disclosures made against this document the working group has been aware of the IPR disclosures, and the shepherd interpret the [lack of] responses such that the working group are comfortable with publishing the document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is very good consensus on this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No such nits. However, the nits tool indicates that the pre-5378 disclaimer is missing. The chepherd believes that all text content is post-5378, but the authors should confirm that this is so. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal reviews necessary. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes the documents are correctly split. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All the normative references are to existing RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. There will be now changes in status existing RFCa. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No new registries are requested. The IANA section has been reviewed and discussed frequently as the work ha proressed. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No such registries. All allocations are mad from already existing registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such reviews needed. |
|
2016-06-16
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-06-16
|
03 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2016-06-16
|
03 | Loa Andersson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2016-06-16
|
03 | Loa Andersson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2016-06-16
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-06-15
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-05-30
|
Maddy Conner | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping | |
|
2016-05-19
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-05-18
|
03 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-03.txt |
|
2016-01-04
|
02 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-02.txt |
|
2015-10-14
|
01 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping.shepherd@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu to (None) |
|
2015-06-11
|
01 | Nobo Akiya | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-01.txt |
|
2015-03-06
|
Naveen Khan | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping | |
|
2015-02-22
|
00 | Loa Andersson | Notification list changed to mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping.shepherd@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu from "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu>, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
|
2015-02-22
|
00 | Loa Andersson | Notification list changed to "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu>, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org from "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> |
|
2015-01-16
|
00 | Tarek Saad | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2014-12-11
|
00 | Loa Andersson | Notification list changed to "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> |
|
2014-12-11
|
00 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
|
2014-12-09
|
00 | George Swallow | This document now replaces draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping instead of None |
|
2014-12-09
|
00 | Nobo Akiya | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-00.txt |