[mpls] Protocol Action: 'RFC6374 UDP Return Path' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-05.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Wed, 20 April 2016 22:35 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160420223521.796.6053.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:35:21 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/7UDPjfkYdUzR26Mss7MGmqADfTo>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [mpls] Protocol Action: 'RFC6374 UDP Return Path' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RFC6374 UDP Return Path'
  (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-05.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah
Brungard.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path/





Technical Summary

The MPLS Packet Loss and Delay Measurement protocol is defined in RFC6374.
RFC 6374 defines how to send and process MPLS performance management 
responses for Loss and Delay measurement.

This document specifies the procedure to be used when an out of band
UDP/IP return path is available.
 
Working Group Summary

 There were nothing exceptional in the working group process other than
 the WG Chairs had to ask twice during the wglc to get any response at
 all. I guess that this is one of those document that is of very strong interest
 for a small group within the working group, while the rest of the working
 understands that it need to be done, being happy that someone takes on the 
 work.

Document Quality

We currently are aware of prototyping, as well as plans to any implement
 this specification, we have an ongoing implementation poll and the write-up
 will be updated if and when we get further news.
 There should be implementations since we made early allocations based
  on upcoming testing.

 No special purpose reviews has been necessary.

The document is well reviewed in mpls-rt and at working adoption
poll, even though the wglc gave nothing but supportive comments.

Personnel

Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

[mpls] Protocol Action: 'RFC6374 UDP Return Path'… The IESG