(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?
BCP as indicated on the title page. This document specifies IANA
Considerations for two important blocks of IEEE 802.1 CFM
(Continuity Fault Management) code points that have been allocated
to the IETF with the expectation that they would be assigned by
IANA based on IETF Standards Actions.
(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:
IEEE 802.1 has specified OAM facilities called Continuity Fault
Management (CFM). CFM messages are structured with an Op-Code field
and have provision for the inclusion of TLV (type, length, value)
structured information. Subsequent to a request from the TRILL WG,
IEEE 802.1 has allocated blocks of CFM Op-Codes and TLV Types to
the IETF. This document specifies the IANA Consideration for the
assignment of values from these blocks.
Working Group Summary:
This is not a Working Group document. The IEEE 802.1 allocation
supported by this document is to the IETF, to be used by various
WG's, not to any particular WG. Hence, it is inappropriate for
this draft to be a WG draft.
The document is short, simple, and of good quality. It has been
reviewed by IANA, the sponsoring AD, and a four week IETF Last
Call. It conforms to the IANA Considerations requested by IEEE
Document Shepherd: Sam Aldrin
Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon
(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
I have reviewed this document. It is short, sweet and very much
needed for OAM work within various WG's. This document is ready for
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, it has been adequately reviewed.
(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
No such 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.
No special concerns. As stated above, this is not a WG document.
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclsoures have been filed referencing this draft.
(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?
This is not a WG document.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB 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?
Yes, they have.
(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, there are no such references.
(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.
There are no downward references but there is a normative
references to a BCP and one to IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011.
(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.
The publication of this document does not change the status of any
(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
The only pupose of the document is to create IANA registries for
the two blocks of codepoints allocated to the IETF by IEEE
802.1. These registries are clearly specified in detail with all
(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.
This document does not specify Expert Review for any future
allocations. It specifies Standards Action as requested by the IEEE
(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.
This document uses no such formal language.