[mpls] Shepherd Writeup update for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-12

David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497281296B4; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:15:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XnVlPnEgaewI; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A86A1296B3; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:15:22 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-0291898000000a06-bd-58b59404aeae
Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 65.8F.02566.40495B85; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:15:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:15:17 -0500
From: David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com>
To: "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd Writeup update for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-12
Thread-Index: AQHSkf9gOIU1cw5VjkCVCjFhEuelMg==
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:15:17 +0000
Message-ID: <FAD90620-6A48-4619-AB99-90AE24C7D328@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FAD906206A484619AB9990AE24C7D328ericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonSpdlytYIg+ZZlhaXu7rZLc4uO8ti cWvpSlYHZo+X/XMYPZYs+ckUwBTFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlTHh6wLGguOLmCp6/u9lamD8Noup i5GTQ0LAROJwz2aWLkYuDiGB9YwSR7rbmCCc5YwSm398ZQGpYgOqWrdxD5DNwSEiUCwxZZ4Q SJhZwA2o5CojiC0sEChx+ct0qJIwifWz4kHCIgJ6Ep1rv4HtYhFQlVh/5wUriM0rYC9xYPML NhCbUUBM4vupNUwQI8Ulbj2ZD3WbgMSSPeeZIWxRiZeP/4H1igLNfHjvJitEXEli0tJzrBC9 yRKtu76xQ8wXlDg58wnLBEbhWUjGzkJSNgtJ2Sygq5kFNCXW79KHKFGUmNL9kB3C1pBonTOX HaLEWuLm1hhkJQsYOVYxcpQWF+TkphsZbmIERtExCTbHHYx7ez0PMQpwMCrx8BZM2BohxJpY VlyZe4hRgoNZSYR3RzFQiDclsbIqtSg/vqg0J7X4EKM0B4uSOO/1kPvhQgLpiSWp2ampBalF MFkmDk6pBsasHrG9730f3WBRK1wxpWph0A/TktUFYR1pJYay5UpL985ncozb96Bu9cfAa6Wv OjfcE9PIe3KrehqDl8oyh9Mznj+4rnZqg/P97Rmib9ZXsTUIP6wO+mt24tGFXxV6TJkHKy60 zdnm7SWun/pBLuiu5NX/k7t/8di4CakFzIjh2aLSG7d23zwlluKMREMt5qLiRAB0eUxdngIA AA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/KdnfvkFP7wqdmcwajoe3T6REKzg>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] Shepherd Writeup update for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-12
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:15:26 -0000

The last Shepherd writeup of this draft was from Dec 2015 (v8 and v9 of the document).
The text below is intended to update that writeup based on v12 of the document.

Let me know if you have any questions.

(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. This is indicated on the title page header, and is
   appropriate since this document specifies requirements for future work.

(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 transport profile (MPLS-TP) includes OAM functions which enable
   maintenance tools that may be used by network operators and service providers
   for fault location, survivability, performance monitoring, in-service and out-
   of-service measurements.  Based on identified problems, this document provides
   considerations for the specification of new requirements to consider a new
   improved mechanism for hitless transport path segment monitoring to be named
   Enhanced Path Segment Monitoring (EPSM).

Working Group Summary

   WG progress was relatively smooth with no controversy.

Document Quality

   The document has been well reviewed by the WG and also as mentioned below,
   and updated accordingly. As a requirements document it does not specify any
   protocol to be implemented, but rather specifies requirements which will be used
   to guide future work.


David Sinicrope is the current Document Shepherd, taking over from Ross Callon. Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area

(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 reviewed the document, and the document
   has been updated in response to his comments.  At WG chair request Huub
   van Helvoort has also done a grammatical review of the document. In addition Rtg Dir Review was performed and liaisons to ITU-T SG15 generated to inform them of the draft and its intent to describe different MPLS-TP OAM requirements those communicated from ITU-T previously.

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

   no concerns.

(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 additional review needed.

(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.

   While no explicit concerns, it should be noted that the document entertains “analysis of existing MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms” and “provides requirements to guide development of new OAM tools” on a topic where requirements were established, led and communicated from ITU-T SG15.   There has been liaison activity related to this topic and I-D dating back to 2010 with https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/917/.   Continued open communication with ITU-T SG15 should be maintained to ensure continuity and migration from existing requirements and solutions.

(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. (this is being reconfirmed for the latest revision)

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

   No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this 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?

Rough consensus. The document has been progressing slowly for quite a while and there was positive response to the WGLC with no objections albeit from a small handful of people, mostly from the author’s affiliations.

(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 discontent or objection, just caution as noted by the comments regarding ITU-T above.

(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

   IDnits pointed to a few minor issues which should be corrected in v12.

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

   Not applicable.

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

   Yes. It should be noted that there are M#/Mandatory requirements made to informative references.

(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 references are to published 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 downrefs. Earlier versions of the document did have downrefs but it was
   clear that these should have been informative references, and the document
   was updated accordingly.

(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.

   not applicable.

(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).

   There are no requests for IANA actions in this document. This is appropriate.

(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.

   There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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.

   not applicable.