Document Writeup

Write up for draft-ietf-grow-va-06

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)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The recommended type of RFC is Information. This is clearly stated
in the title page header. Information is the recommended type because
the document is not on standards track, and there is an expectation
that the specified technology can be deployed.

(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 continued growth in the Default Free Routing Table (DFRT)
stresses the global routing system in a number of ways. One of the
most costly stresses is FIB size: ISPs often must upgrade router
hardware simply because the FIB has run out of space, and router
vendors must design routers that have adequate FIB. FIB suppression
is an approach to relieving stress on the FIB by not loading selected
RIB entries into the FIB. Virtual Aggregation (VA) allows ISPs to
shrink the FIBs of any and all routers, easily by an order of
magnitude with negligible increase in path length and load. FIB
suppression can be deployed autonomously by an ISP without requiring
cooperation between adjacent ISPs, and can co-exist with legacy
routers in the ISP.

Working Group Summary

The document has has significant participation in the workgroup for
sometime. It is a group of three documents submitted to grow. The
other 2 are draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-04, and draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-05,
which extend this initial document. At the final time of last call
there were no objections.

Document Quality

The document has been authored by both research members, and at least
one vendor. During last call specific people were requested to review
the document including active ietf members with service provider
expertise.

Personnel

Peter Schoenmaker is the document shepherd.
Ron Bonica is the AD

(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, along with consulting
with members of the community to ensure it has been properly reviewed,
and is ready for publication.

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

There are no concerns with the depth or breadth of the reviews
performed. Approaching last call there was waning comments and
participation. The shepherd ensured that a sufficient review
was 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 working group in which the document has been adopted in is composed
of a wide number of active participants from the different areas. It
it believed that no further review is required.

(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.

There is a concern that over time the level of interest in the
document has fallen to a limited scope of people.

(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.

Huawei has made a IPR disclosure that appears to comply.

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

The IPR issues have been discussed on the mailing list. Similar
to the overall interest, the objections were not raised again,
when an effort to clarify and resolve the issues was brought up.

(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?

Last call was quiet. Final review had to be personally sought.

(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 issue has been brought up.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are 8 warnings in the document. These seems minor the the
content of the document. The shephard believes that a new
revision will be required as part of the IESG review process
at which time the authors will clean up the nits.

(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 require any of the formal review criteria.

(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?

No.

(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.

(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.

No.

(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 document does not need any IANA considerations.

(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.

See #17

(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.

The document does not use any formal language