Skip to main content

Special-Purpose Label Terminology
RFC 9017

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-07-28
06 (System) IANA registries were updated to include RFC9017
2021-04-09
06 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9017, changed title to 'Special-Purpose Label Terminology', changed abstract to 'This document discusses and recommends …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9017, changed title to 'Special-Purpose Label Terminology', changed abstract to 'This document discusses and recommends terminology that may be used when MPLS Special-Purpose Labels (SPLs) are specified and documented.

This document applies that terminology change to the relevant IANA registry and also clarifies the use of the Entropy Label Indicator (7) when immediately preceded by the Extension Label (15).

This document updates RFCs 3032 and 7274.', changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2021-04-09, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created updates relation between draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology and RFC 3032, created updates relation between draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology and RFC 7274)
2021-04-09
06 (System) RFC published
2021-04-07
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-03-30
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE
2021-03-26
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-03-17
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-02-17
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-02-02
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2021-02-02
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2021-02-02
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2021-02-01
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2021-01-25
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-01-25
06 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-01-25
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-01-25
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan RFC Editor Note was changed
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan RFC Editor Note was changed
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2021-01-25
06 Cindy Morgan RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2021-01-22
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2021-01-22
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2021-01-21
06 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-06.txt
2021-01-21
06 (System) New version approved
2021-01-21
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adrian Farrel , Kireeti Kompella , Loa Andersson
2021-01-21
06 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2021-01-21
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2021-01-20
05 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Joel for the OpsDir review - as usual, it was really helpful.
2021-01-20
05 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2021-01-20
05 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2021-01-19
05 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Samuel Weiler for the SECDIR review.
2021-01-19
05 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2021-01-19
05 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2021-01-18
05 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
I'm tempted to DISCUSS this, but for now I'll just ask it:

Can an IANA registry be a normative reference?  There are three …
[Ballot comment]
I'm tempted to DISCUSS this, but for now I'll just ask it:

Can an IANA registry be a normative reference?  There are three here.
2021-01-18
05 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2021-01-18
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2021-01-18
05 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
A nice solid and well-written document; thanks.  Just nit-level quibbles
from me...

Section 3

What is the expansion of the "cSPL" term used …
[Ballot comment]
A nice solid and well-written document; thanks.  Just nit-level quibbles
from me...

Section 3

What is the expansion of the "cSPL" term used in Figure 2?
It does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the prose.

Section 5

  The document describes the terminology to be used when describing and
  specifying the use of SPLs.  It does not effect the forwarding in the
  MPLS data plane, [...]

(nit) I think we want "affect" with an "a" (though the statement is
arguably more true with the "e" version; keep reading).
Also, my instinctive response to absolute statements like "does not
affect" is to seek even the smallest of counterexamples; we do seem to
(in Section 4) now mandate that processing XL followed by 7 at the top
of the stack be "drop the packet", and it was not fully clear to me
whether that was specifically mandated in the RFC 7274 procedures (or
even whether there is something useful to do with such a packet other
than "drop" in the first place).

Section 6

  IANA is requested to change the name of the registry that today is
  called "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" is changed to "Base
  Special- Purpose MPLS Label Values".

(nit) The "requested to change [...] is changed to" seems wonky, but
this has to get rewritten by the RFC Editor anyway once IANA has made
the change, so it may not be worth messing with now.
2021-01-18
05 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2021-01-17
05 Robert Wilton [Ballot comment]
Only a minor editorial comment: I was surprised to see "name space" used instead of "namespace".
2021-01-17
05 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2021-01-15
05 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-01-14
05 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2021-01-13
05 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2021-01-04
05 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-01-21
2021-01-04
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2021-01-04
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2021-01-04
05 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2021-01-04
05 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2021-01-04
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2021-01-04
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2020-12-29
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2020-12-29
05 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

The Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry located on the Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Values registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values/

will have the name of the registry changed from the existing:

Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values

to:

Base Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2020-12-21
05 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-01-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Nicolai Leymann , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-01-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Nicolai Leymann , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, n.leymann@telekom.de
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Special Purpose Label terminology) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Special Purpose Label
terminology'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-01-04. 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


  This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

  This document applies that terminology change to the relevant IANA
  registry and also clarifies the use of the Entropy Label Indicator
  (7) when immediately preceded by the Extension Label (15).

  This document updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology/

Note, this is a 2nd IETF Last Call as the document was updated and reflects
an update in Status from Informational to PS.

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2020-12-21
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2020-12-21
05 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2020-12-21
05 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2020-12-21
05 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was changed
2020-12-21
05 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2020-12-21
05 Deborah Brungard
Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper …
Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

(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?

PS.
The draft updates an IANA registry and clarifies processing.

(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

This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

This document applies that terminology change to the relevant IANA
registry and also clarifies the use of the Entropy Label Indicator
(7) when immediately preceded by the Extension Label (15).

This document updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032.

Working Group Summary

When undergoing IETF Last Call, several issues were identified. The
document was returned to the Working Group and it was determined
the status should be changed from Informational to PS. The Working Group
supported these clarifications and it repeated WG Last Call.

Document Quality

  The document went through several reviews and updates based
  on the feedback.


Personnel

  Nicolai Leymann 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 document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document
  and subsequently checked all diffs. Comments on the mailing list
  were addressed in the last version. The document shepherd believes
  that the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  The shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breadth of the
  reviews performed.

(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.

  The document does not require a specific review.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns about the document.

(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.

  No.

(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 solid consensus of all people who have reviewed and
  contributed to the 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.


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

  The document does not define a data model nor does it allocate new
  media types and URI types.

(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?

  All normative references are either to RFCs or to Label Value Assignments
  handled by the IANA.

(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.

This document updates RFC3032 and RFC7274.

(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 IANA consideration are straight forward and clearly written.

(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 new IANA registries are being defined that require Expert Review.

(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 formal reviews necessary.
2020-12-17
05 Tarek Saad
Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper …
Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

(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?

Informational - Informational indicated on the title page.
The draft does not specify a new protocol or extension.

(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

  This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update RFC7274 and RFC3032.

Document Quality

  The document went through several reviews and updates based
  on the feedback.


Personnel

  Nicolai Leymann 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 document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document
  and subsequently checked all diffs. Comments on the mailing list
  were addressed in the last version. The document shepherd believes
  that the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  The shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breadth of the
  reviews performed.

(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.

  The document does not require a specific review.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns about the document.

(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.

  No.

(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 solid consensus of all people who have reviewed and
  contributed to the 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.

  Section 2 should be fixed:

      * the values 0-15 has been reserved never to be allocated
      * the values 15-239 are available for allocation

Value 15 is used for "reserved" and "available for allocation" as well.
To be consistent with RFC7274 this should read as:

  * the values 0-15 have been reserved never to be allocated
  * the values 16-239 are available for allocation

Authors are aware of the necessary change and will update the draft.

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

  The document does not define a data model nor does it allocate new
  media types and URI types.

(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?

  All normative references are either to RFCs or to Label Value Assignments
  handled by the IANA.

(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.

  There will be no status change of any other documents when this
  document is published.

(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 IANA consideration are straight forward and clearly written.

(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 new IANA registries are being defined.

(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 formal reviews necessary.
2020-12-17
05 Tarek Saad IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2020-12-17
05 Tarek Saad IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching
2020-11-27
05 Nicolai Leymann Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD cleared.
2020-11-15
05 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-05.txt
2020-11-15
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2020-11-15
05 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2020-11-05
04 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn'
2020-11-05
04 Jean Mahoney Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Francis Dupont was marked no-response
2020-10-19
04 Nicolai Leymann Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Informational
2020-10-02
04 Loa Andersson Tag AD Followup cleared.
2020-10-02
04 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2020-09-28
04 (System) Removed unintended duplicate opsdir lc review
2020-09-24
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-09-24
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2020-09-24
04 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-04.txt
2020-09-24
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2020-09-24
04 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2020-09-15
03 Deborah Brungard Issues raised during Last Call - need clarification on ranges wrt RFC7274.
2020-09-15
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed from Expert Review
2020-09-02
03 Deborah Brungard Identified issues which need to be fixed.
2020-09-02
03 Deborah Brungard Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set.
2020-09-02
03 Deborah Brungard IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication
2020-09-02
03 Deborah Brungard Returned to Working Group for identified issues.
2020-09-02
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Waiting for Writeup
2020-08-27
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Samuel Weiler. Sent review to list.
2020-08-26
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2020-08-25
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2020-08-25
03 Michelle Cotton
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03 . If any part of this review is inaccurate, please …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03 . If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

The Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry located on the Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Values registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values/

will have the name of the registry changed from the existing:

Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values

to:

Base Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Michelle Cotton
Protocol Parameters Engagement Sr. Manager
IANA Services
2020-08-21
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Samuel Weiler
2020-08-21
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Samuel Weiler
2020-08-15
03 Joel Jaeggli Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli. Sent review to list.
2020-08-15
03 Joel Jaeggli Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli. Sent review to list.
2020-08-14
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2020-08-14
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2020-08-13
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2020-08-13
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2020-08-12
03 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2020-08-12
03 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-08-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: mpls@ietf.org, Nicolai Leymann , mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-08-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: mpls@ietf.org, Nicolai Leymann , mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, n.leymann@telekom.de
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Special Purpose Label terminology) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Special Purpose Label
terminology'
  as 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-08-26. 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


  This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

  This document updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2020-08-12
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2020-08-12
03 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2020-08-12
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2020-08-12
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2020-08-12
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2020-08-12
03 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was changed
2020-08-12
03 Deborah Brungard Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2020-08-12
03 Loa Andersson New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03.txt
2020-08-12
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Loa Andersson)
2020-08-12
03 Loa Andersson Uploaded new revision
2020-08-10
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Eric Gray.
2020-07-30
02 Min Ye Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Patrice Brissette was rejected
2020-07-30
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray
2020-07-30
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray
2020-07-30
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Patrice Brissette
2020-07-30
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Patrice Brissette
2020-07-28
02 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2020-07-08
02 Nicolai Leymann
Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper …
Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

(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?

Informational - Informational indicated on the title page.
The draft does not specify a new protocol or extension.

(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

  This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update RFC7274 and RFC3032.

Document Quality

  The document went through several reviews and updates based
  on the feedback.


Personnel

  Nicolai Leymann 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 document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document
  and subsequently checked all diffs. Comments on the mailing list
  were addressed in the last version. The document shepherd believes
  that the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  The shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breadth of the
  reviews performed.

(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.

  The document does not require a specific review.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns about the document.

(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.

  No.

(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 solid consensus of all people who have reviewed and
  contributed to the 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.

  Section 2 should be fixed:

      * the values 0-15 has been reserved never to be allocated
      * the values 15-239 are available for allocation

Value 15 is used for "reserved" and "available for allocation" as well.
To be consistent with RFC7274 this should read as:

  * the values 0-15 have been reserved never to be allocated
  * the values 16-239 are available for allocation

Authors are aware of the necessary change and will update the draft.

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

  The document does not define a data model nor does it allocate new
  media types and URI types.

(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?

  All normative references are either to RFCs or to Label Value Assignments
  handled by the IANA.

(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.

  There will be no status change of any other documents when this
  document is published.

(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 IANA consideration are straight forward and clearly written.

(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 new IANA registries are being defined.

(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 formal reviews necessary.
2020-07-08
02 Nicolai Leymann Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2020-07-08
02 Nicolai Leymann IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2020-07-08
02 Nicolai Leymann IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2020-07-08
02 Nicolai Leymann IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-07-08
02 Nicolai Leymann Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2020-07-08
02 Nicolai Leymann Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2020-07-08
02 Nicolai Leymann
Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper …
Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

(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?

Informational - Informational indicated on the title page.
The draft does not specify a new protocol or extension.

(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

  This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
  when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update RFC7274 and RFC3032.

Document Quality

  The document went through several reviews and updates based
  on the feedback.


Personnel

  Nicolai Leymann 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 document shepherd has carefully reviewed the document
  and subsequently checked all diffs. Comments on the mailing list
  were addressed in the last version. The document shepherd believes
  that the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  The shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breadth of the
  reviews performed.

(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.

  The document does not require a specific review.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns about the document.

(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.

  No.

(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 solid consensus of all people who have reviewed and
  contributed to the 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.

  Section 2 should be fixed:

      * the values 0-15 has been reserved never to be allocated
      * the values 15-239 are available for allocation

Value 15 is used for "reserved" and "available for allocation" as well.
To be consistent with RFC7274 this should read as:

  * the values 0-15 have been reserved never to be allocated
  * the values 16-239 are available for allocation

Authors are aware of the necessary change and will update the draft.

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

  The document does not define a data model nor does it allocate new
  media types and URI types.

(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?

  All normative references are either to RFCs or to Label Value Assignments
  handled by the IANA.

(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.

  There will be no status change of any other documents when this
  document is published.

(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 IANA consideration are straight forward and clearly written.

(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 new IANA registries are being defined.

(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 formal reviews necessary.
2020-05-05
02 Loa Andersson New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt
2020-05-05
02 (System) New version approved
2020-05-05
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adrian Farrel , Kireeti Kompella , Loa Andersson
2020-05-05
02 Loa Andersson Uploaded new revision
2019-11-21
01 Loa Andersson Notification list changed to Nicolai Leymann <n.leymann@telekom.de>
2019-11-21
01 Loa Andersson Document shepherd changed to Nicolai Leymann
2019-11-21
01 Loa Andersson New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-01.txt
2019-11-21
01 (System) New version approved
2019-11-21
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adrian Farrel , Kireeti Kompella , Loa Andersson
2019-11-21
01 Loa Andersson Uploaded new revision
2019-07-07
00 Loa Andersson This document now replaces draft-andersson-mpls-spl-terminology instead of None
2019-07-07
00 Loa Andersson New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-00.txt
2019-07-07
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2019-07-07
00 Loa Andersson Set submitter to "Loa Andersson ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: mpls-chairs@ietf.org
2019-07-07
00 Loa Andersson Uploaded new revision