Skip to main content

RSVP-TE Path Diversity Using Exclude Route
RFC 8390

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-19
10 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'RSVP-TE provides support for the communication of exclusion information during Label Switched Path (LSP) setup. A …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'RSVP-TE provides support for the communication of exclusion information during Label Switched Path (LSP) setup. A typical LSP diversity use case is for protection, where two LSPs should follow different paths through the network in order to avoid single points of failure, thus greatly improving service availability. This document specifies an approach that can be used for network scenarios where the full path(s) is not necessarily known by use of an abstract identifier for the path. Three types of abstract identifiers are specified: client based, Path Computation Element (PCE) based, and network based. This document specifies two new diversity subobjects for the RSVP eXclude Route Object (XRO) and the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS).

For the protection use case, LSPs are typically created at a slow rate and exist for a long time so that it is reasonable to assume that a given (reference) path currently existing (with a well-known identifier) will continue to exist and can be used as a reference when creating the new diverse path. Re-routing of the existing (reference) LSP, before the new path is established, is not considered.')
2018-07-18
10 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8390, changed title to 'RSVP-TE Path Diversity Using Exclude Route', changed abstract to 'RSVP-TE provides …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8390, changed title to 'RSVP-TE Path Diversity Using Exclude Route', changed abstract to 'RSVP-TE provides support for the communication of exclusion information during Label Switched Path (LSP) setup. A typical LSP diversity use case is for protection, where two LSPs should follow different paths through the network in order to avoid single points of failure, thus greatly improving service availability. This document specifies an approach that can be used for network scenarios where the full path(s) is not necessarily known by use of an abstract identifier for the path. Three types of abstract identifiers are specified: client based, Path Computation Element (PCE) based, and network based. This document specifies two new diversity subobjects for the RSVP eXclude Route Object (XRO) and the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS).', changed pages to 26, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-07-18, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created updates relation between draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity and RFC 4874)
2018-07-18
10 (System) RFC published
2018-07-16
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8390">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2018-05-07
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8390">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2018-04-19
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2018-03-28
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2018-03-27
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2018-03-26
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2018-03-26
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC
2018-03-22
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from In Progress
2018-03-22
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC
2018-03-08
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from In Progress
2018-03-02
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2018-03-02
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2018-03-02
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-03-02
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-03-02
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2018-03-02
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2018-03-02
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-03-02
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2018-03-02
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2018-03-02
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2018-03-02
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2018-03-02
10 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-10.txt
2018-03-02
10 (System) New version approved
2018-03-02
10 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, George Swallow …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
2018-03-02
10 Dieter Beller Uploaded new revision
2017-11-12
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-11-12
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-11-12
09 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-09.txt
2017-11-12
09 (System) New version approved
2017-11-12
09 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, George Swallow …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
2017-11-12
09 Dieter Beller Uploaded new revision
2017-08-31
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar.
2017-08-31
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-08-31
08 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-08-30
08 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
* Section 2.1
  Is there a separate diversity identifier type called "IPv6 Client Initiated Identifier" as referenced in the following text

"When …
[Ballot comment]
* Section 2.1
  Is there a separate diversity identifier type called "IPv6 Client Initiated Identifier" as referenced in the following text

"When the diversity identifier type is set to "IPv6 Client Initiated Identifier""

If there isn't such a DI Type, can you please fix this text.
2017-08-30
08 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-08-30
08 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-08-30
08 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-08-30
08 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot comment]
I'm not sure that the security considerations here are accurate. Specifically, the PAS seems like it might potentially leak information about paths, because …
[Ballot comment]
I'm not sure that the security considerations here are accurate. Specifically, the PAS seems like it might potentially leak information about paths, because if I am able to learn someone else's PAS values, I can tell if they are routed along the same paths as I am. Is that correct? If so, it seems like it might be useful to recommend self-encrypting PAS values so that two identical paths given to separate people have different PAS values.

Also, it seems like it S 2.3 would be clearer if you factored out the algorithm for processing the XRO values from the differential treatment depending on the L bit. Perhaps you could just have one list and use [SHOULD (L=1), MUST(L=0)] or something?
2017-08-30
08 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-08-30
08 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I agree with the SecDir review, but don't see a response so I am bringing attention to it here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/pLKMfe4j8dPeNdEgWYu3SAnC-rs
2017-08-30
08 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-08-30
08 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
I support Adam's position. I also think that Ignas Bagdonas' OpsDir review ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08-opsdir-lc-bagdonas-2017-08-30/ ) needs careful consideration / addressing. I almost balloted …
[Ballot comment]
I support Adam's position. I also think that Ignas Bagdonas' OpsDir review ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08-opsdir-lc-bagdonas-2017-08-30/ ) needs careful consideration / addressing. I almost balloted DISCUSS from them, but trust that they will be addressed.

I did find much of the document well written and an easy read. The diagrams were also (surprisingly) clear.

I have some nits / comments, mainly around the abstract.
1:  "Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"  - s/ReserVation/ReSerVation/ (otherwise the (R)RSVP would be (R)RVP)

2: " Three different mechanisms are supported how LSP diversity can be accomplished in the provider or core network: ..." - this doesn't really parse. Perhaps " Three different
mechanisms providing LSP diversity in the provider or core network are supported:..." ? Not great, but ...

3: "The solution described in this document is based on the assumption that LSPs are requested sequentially, i.e., the time period between the LSP setup requests for the two LSPs may be longer (days, weeks, months)." -- may be longer than what? Perhaps "may be relatively long" or "may be on the order of days / weeks / months"?

4" "Re-routing the first LSP that may have existed for a longer period of time is not considered." - again, longer than what? Longer than the second (/ Ntn)? Longer than months?
2017-08-30
08 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-08-30
08 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-08-30
08 Ignas Bagdonas Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ignas Bagdonas. Sent review to list.
2017-08-29
08 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
The Abstract should stand on its own; and, as such, needs to expand the "XRO" and "EXRS" acronyms (similar to the Introduction).

For …
[Ballot comment]
The Abstract should stand on its own; and, as such, needs to expand the "XRO" and "EXRS" acronyms (similar to the Introduction).

For completeness, the definition of the "E" flag in section 2.1 probably needs to indicate that bit 0x08 is reserved, and MUST be set to 0 send, ignored on receipt.

In section 3.2, on page 19, concerning the following text:

      If, subsequent to the initial signaling of a diverse LSP, the
      requested exclusion constraints for the diverse LSP are no longer
      satisfied and an alternative path for the diverse LSP that can
      satisfy those constraints exists, then:

The phrasing "no longer satisfied" seems a bit incomplete, as (by my understanding) the constraints might not have been satisfied in the first place, if the L-bit was set in the initial request. I presume that, if this were to happen, you'd want to signal when a compliant path became available -- but the current text doesn't indicate that this is okay. Perhaps something like: "...are no longer satisfied (or, in the case that the initial request triggered a "Failed to satisfy Exclude Route" error subcode, remain unsatisfied), and an alternative path for..."
2017-08-29
08 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2017-08-29
08 Benjamin Kaduk Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Benjamin Kaduk.
2017-08-28
08 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
From the abstract: "Three different
mechanisms are supported how LSP diversity can be accomplished in
the provider or core network:..."

Is there a …
[Ballot comment]
From the abstract: "Three different
mechanisms are supported how LSP diversity can be accomplished in
the provider or core network:..."

Is there a missing word around "... supported how..."?
2017-08-28
08 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-08-27
08 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I’m looking at this text,

          0x04 = Penultimate node exception
 
              …
[Ballot comment]
I’m looking at this text,

          0x04 = Penultimate node exception
 
              Indicates that the penultimate node of the LSP being
              signaled MAY be shared with the excluded path even when
              this violates the exclusion flags.

and wondering whether you could either provide some recommendation about doing this/not doing this, or give an example of why doing this/not doing this makes operational sense. The other exceptions do make sense to me, so I’m only curious about this one.
2017-08-27
08 Spencer Dawkins Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-27
08 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-25
08 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot comment]
- Maybe RFC4920 should be a normative reference (due to sec 1.1)?
2017-08-25
08 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-08-24
08 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-08-24
08 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2017-08-24
08 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-08-24
08 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2017-08-24
08 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2017-08-24
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-08-23
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2017-08-23
08 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

We have a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, on the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/

the EXCLUDE_ROUTE object is C-Type 232. However, the current draft references C-Type 1.

IANA Question --> Are the two registrations requested in section 4.1 intended to be inserted in the Sub-Object types subregistry for the Class Types or C-Types - 232 EXCLUDE_ROUTE registry?

Second, in the Sub-object type - 20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE ? Type 1 Explicit Route subregistry of the Class Types or C-Types - 20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE registry on the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: IPv4 Diversity subobject
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: IPv6 Diversity subobject
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We note that the values used for these two registrations are requested to be the same values used in the registration for the request in Section 4.1 of the current draft.

Third, in the Sub-Codes - 24 Routing Problem subregistry of the Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes registry on the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/

a single, new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Unsupported Diversity Identifier Type
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the Sub-Codes - 225 Notify Error subregistry of the Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes registry on the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/

three, new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Route of XRO LSP identifier unknown
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Failed to satisfy Exclude Route
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Compliant path exists
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that these four actions are the only ones 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 Services Specialist
2017-08-15
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ignas Bagdonas
2017-08-15
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ignas Bagdonas
2017-08-10
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2017-08-10
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2017-08-10
08 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-08-10
08 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, db3546@att.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08.txt> (Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Route) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path
  Diversity using Exclude Route'
  <draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08.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 2017-08-24. 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


  Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering provides support
  for the communication of exclusion information during label switched
  path (LSP) setup. This document specifies two new diversity
  subobjects for the RSVP XRO and EXRS subobjects. Three different
  mechanisms are supported how LSP diversity can be accomplished in
  the provider or core network: the signaled diversity type, indicates
  whether diversity is based on client, path computation engine (PCE),
  or network assigned identifiers.
  The solution described in this document is based on the assumption
  that LSPs are requested sequentially, i.e., the time period between
  the LSP setup requests for the two LSPs may be longer (days, weeks,
  months). Re-routing the first LSP that may have existed for a longer
  period of time is not considered.

 



The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1943/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2383/





2017-08-10
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-08-10
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Benjamin Kaduk
2017-08-10
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Benjamin Kaduk
2017-08-10
08 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-31
2017-08-10
08 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2017-08-10
08 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2017-08-10
08 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2017-08-10
08 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review
2017-08-10
08 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2017-07-02
08 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08.txt
2017-07-02
08 (System) New version approved
2017-07-02
08 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, George Swallow …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
2017-07-02
08 Dieter Beller Uploaded new revision
2017-05-26
07 Deborah Brungard Bruno- for Routing Directorate.
2017-05-26
07 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2017-05-23
07 Bruno Decraene Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Bruno Decraene.
2017-05-08
07 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene
2017-05-08
07 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene
2017-05-05
07 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2017-04-28
07 Lou Berger

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. …

> 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)?

Proposed Standard

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

Because it specifies new protocol wire formats and behaviors.

>  Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes


> (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
>  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.

  Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering provides
  support for the communication of exclusion information during
  labeled switch path setup. This document specifies three new
  route exclusion types.  The new types include exclusions based on
  LSP, PCE and network assigned identifiers.

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

An earlier version of this document failed WG last call.  This
version represents a substantial rework, with additional input from
the WG.  It now has reasonable support, and no objections.


> 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?

The base RSVP-TE mechanisms have been implemented.  The extensions
defined in this document can coexist with earlier implementations.
Multiple implementors have vendors contributed to this document and
are expected to implement the defined mechanisms. 


> Personnel

>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

>  Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

> (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 document has been reviewed by the Shepherd while being developed as
well as in it's current form.  It is ready for publications

> (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.

The document authors have been a bit slow in responding to WG LC comments.  That said, the document is in good shape for publication.

> (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.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

IPR has been disclosed.  It has been repeatedly pointed out on the
TEAS and CCAMP (where this work started) lists. No one has raised
any specific concerns with the existence or relevance of these
disclosures. 

> (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?

strong concurrence, largely by contributors.  There are no objections.

> (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.)

Not with the current version. 

> (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.

None.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None required/apply.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

Yes.

> (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?

None.

> (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.

None.

> (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.

Yes.

>
> (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).

The Shepherd conducted an full review of the section, and suggested
changes to the section that were made prior to publication
request. No new registries are created.

> (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.

None.

> (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.

N/A.


2017-04-28
07 Lou Berger Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2017-04-28
07 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2017-04-28
07 Lou Berger IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-04-28
07 Lou Berger IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-04-28
07 Lou Berger Changed document writeup
2017-04-28
07 Lou Berger Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2017-03-27
07 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-07.txt
2017-03-27
07 (System) New version approved
2017-03-27
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, George Swallow …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Dieter Beller <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
2017-03-27
07 Dieter Beller Uploaded new revision
2016-10-18
06 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-06.txt
2016-10-18
06 (System) New version approved
2016-10-18
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Dieter Beller" <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, "Zafar Ali" <zali@cisco.com>, "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Fatai Zhang" …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Dieter Beller" <dieter.beller@nokia.com>, "Zafar Ali" <zali@cisco.com>, "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Fatai Zhang" <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
2016-10-18
05 Dieter Beller Uploaded new revision
2016-09-02
05 Lou Berger WG poll closed: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg01484.html
Waiting for issues to be resolved: Public: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg01482.html
plus any private comments
2016-09-02
05 Lou Berger Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2016-09-02
05 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2016-07-10
05 Lou Berger Changed document writeup
2016-07-10
05 Lou Berger Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-07-10
05 Lou Berger Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-07-08
05 Lou Berger LC ends July 10
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg01434.html
2016-07-08
05 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-06-24
05 Zafar Ali New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-05.txt
2016-06-23
04 Lou Berger 20/21:
    https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg01422.html

Still missing:
  fu.xihua at zte.com.cn
2016-06-21
04 Lou Berger 18/21:
    https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg01399.html

Still missing:
  fu.xihua at zte.com.cn
  Ruediger.Kunze at telekom.de
  Lieven.Levrau at nokia.com
2016-06-13
04 Lou Berger
2016-06-06
04 Lou Berger 15/21: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg01356.html
2016-06-05
04 Lou Berger
2016-03-21
04 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-04.txt
2016-01-05
03 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-03.txt
2015-10-30
02 Matt Hartley IPR response 14 of 21: George Swallow https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-tec77pscAv5-xLZLkvElJxhDYU
2015-10-29
02 Matt Hartley
IPR response 13 of 21: Don Fedyk: Yes I'm aware of IPR that applies to the draft. The IPR that I'm aware of has been …
IPR response 13 of 21: Don Fedyk: Yes I'm aware of IPR that applies to the draft. The IPR that I'm aware of has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules.

(sent to WG list but not visible in list archive for some reason)
2015-10-29
02 Matt Hartley IPR response 12 of 21: Julien Meuric: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/C65InyPndyGrIPDpM3K6ZwU_MOI
2015-10-26
02 Matt Hartley IPR response 11 of 21: Cyril Margaria: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/bSN74_S3i_I0d7B6k2PQwkyTbvw
2015-10-21
02 Matt Hartley
2015-10-21
02 Matt Hartley IPR poll started 10/18: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Ep-ylFFcZL5ApJjbZT2zP4mJyV0
2015-10-14
02 (System) Notify list changed from "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> to (None)
2015-09-18
02 Lou Berger Notification list changed to "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
2015-09-18
02 Lou Berger Document shepherd changed to Lou Berger
2015-07-06
02 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-02.txt
2015-03-09
01 Dieter Beller New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-01.txt
2014-12-12
00 Lou Berger This document now replaces draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity instead of None
2014-12-10
00 Zafar Ali New version available: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-00.txt