Shepherd writeup

(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, as indicated on the title page. This is the proper
   type because this it extends the protocol in Informational RFC 2516
   and the specification was originated outside the IETF, in the
   Broadband Forum (BBF).

(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

   As part of providing wireline access to the 5G Core, deployed
   wireline networks carry user data between 5G residential gateways
   and the 5G Access Gateway Function. The encapsulation used
   needs to meet a variety of requirements including being able to
   multiplex the traffic of multiple user data sessions within a VLAN
   delineated access circuit, to permit legacy equipment in the data
   path to snoop certain packet fields, to carry 5G QoS information
   associated with the data, and to be efficiently encoded. This memo
   specifies an encapsulation that meets these requirements.

Working Group Summary

   This document is an Individual Submission that was developed in the
   Broadband Forum.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?

    There are no known implementations at this point. A number of vendors
    (Juniper, Nokia, Huawei, ZTE, Intel) have indicated interest in the
    specification in the BBF.


Document Shepherd: Erik Kline
Responsible Area Director: Erik Kline

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.

   Reviewed -03, gave feedback resulting in -04. Sought feedback from
   fellow INT AD, intarea wg chairs, and Barbara Stark (for her BBF
   expertise).  No concerns raised; general support received.

   Feedback included:

      This draft represents a strong-consensus technical solution that has
      undergone many iterations (and looking at various other alternatives)
      in Broadband Forum. All the major router vendors and ISPs wanting to
      do 5G wireline have been involved and are on board...

(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 special 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 interested
community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

   No concerns.

(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.

   Authors confirm all appropriate disclosures have been made.

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

   Yes, see

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

   This document has been evolved and extensively discussed in the
   Broadband Forum WWC (Wireless Wireline Convergence) Work Area and
   has consensus there.

(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.


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

   No major issues for -04.

   Document date is a month behind, but that is the AD/shepherd's fault
   for not being sufficiently proactive.

   I-D nits tool does flag 2119/8174/2516 as references that need not
   be, given the Informational status.

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

   No formal review required.

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


(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?


(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.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?


(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

   Everything seems in order.

   This document request the creation of an IANA registry called
   "PPP Over Ethernet Versions", specifies the contents of same from
   this and RFC 2516, and requests that Expert Review be the mechanism
   for future registrations.

(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.

   Yes, this document creates an Expert Review IANA Registry for PPP
   over Ethernet version numbers. Any expert(s) appointed for this
   registry should be knowledgeable in PPP and Ethernet. Donald
   Eastlake has volunteered to be an Expert.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

   None of this document is in a formal language.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
( for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

   This document does not contain any YANG.