Document Action: 'MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding-09.txt)

The IESG <> Tue, 04 March 2014 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A761A00B9; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:27:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YOypTprIqNot; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B8D1A024F; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:26:48 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Document Action: 'MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding-09.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:26:48 -0800
Cc: mpls mailing list <>, mpls chair <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 16:27:04 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements'
  (draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding-09.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

      This document provides guidelines for implementers regarding MPLS
      forwarding and a basis for evaluations of forwarding implementations.
      Guidelines cover many aspects of MPLS forwarding.  Topics are
      highlighted where implementers might otherwise overlook practical
      requirements which are unstated or under emphasized or are optional
      for conformance to RFCs but are often considered mandatory by

Working Group Summary

      This document has been discussed by the working group both on the
      mailing list and at a long slot at the working meeting in Vancouver.

      The working group is behind this document, there has been no mayor
      controversies and very good discussions.

Document Quality

      The question about implementations is a bit tricky - there are no
      implementations based on the document, as there were existing 
      implementations when the document was started up. Instead it is the 
      other  way around, the document discusses implementation and 
      deployment experiences. All the scenarios discussed in the document
      have been implemented and/or deployed.

      The document is Informational and no MIB Doctor, Media type or other
      other types of expert reviews have been necessary.

      Loa Andersson, is the document Shepherd.
      Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD