# Document Shepherd Write-Up for 6MAN WG document
draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The draft has been discussed by the WG extensively, and even went to two WGLCs.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No points of particular controversy were raised.
While a number of concerns were raised during the first WGLC, all issues were
fully resolved in subsequent document versions, satisfying all reviewers.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
There is prototype There is a prototype for the ICMP Loopback draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mcb-6man-icmpv6-loopback-01),
which evolved into this draft: https://github.com/talmi/IOAM-Ping-Demo
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
This document is in scope of the 6MAN, and doesn't overlap with other WGs or
external orgs.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
This document contains no YANG module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
The document contains no such sections.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes. The shepherd happened to review this document extensively during both
WGLCs, and believes that the document is ready to be advanced.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
No such issues have been identified.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The intended status is Proposed Standard, as shown in the Datatracker.
As this document defines a new ICMP extension object and defines the host
behavior in processing ICMPv6 messages containing that object, the PS is the
proper type for the RFC.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
There is one IPR disclosure for this document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection
The authors are not aware of any other IPR claims:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VcPCaeQjslisYLeCzt7iRerDi5A/
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
All authors confirmed they ar still willing to be listed as such:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VcPCaeQjslisYLeCzt7iRerDi5A/
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
There are 3 lines longer than 72 chars, but they are in the table for the IANA
consideraton section. When 'This document' is replaced with the RFC number,
those lines with be shorter.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
References looks correctly classified.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
NO such references.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
No such references.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
Yes, this document uses technologies from RFC8335 and
draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis. The 8335-bis document is currently in the WGLC
in the intarea and the plans are to advance it to the IESG ASAP.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No status changes for any other documents.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The document requests to allocate a new object class. The request is to update
the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class Sub-types" registry. The request
is clearly written, correctly idetifies all values and is consistent with the
body of the document.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/