Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Title           : Support for adjustable maximum router lifetimes per-link
Authors         : Suresh Krishnan
                  Jouni Korhonen
                  Samita Chakrabarti
                  Erik Nordmark
                  Andrew Yourtchenko
Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-maxra-03.txt
Pages           : 6
Date            : 2017-07-03

(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

   Proposed Standard

   This is appropriate as this document updates a standards track
   RFC.  Standards Track is indicated on the title page header and

(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 neighbor discovery protocol specifies the maximum time allowed
   between sending unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements from a
   router interface as well as the maximum router lifetime.  It also
   allows the limits to be overridden by link-layer specific documents.
   This document allows for overriding these values on a per-link basis.

Working Group Summary:

   There is support for this document in the 6MAN working group.  Several
   issues were raised during the w.g. last call.  These issues are
   resolved in the current draft.  There is a concensus to advance this

Document Quality:

   The quality of the document is good, it has received adequate review
   in the working group on the mailing list and at several 6man sessions
   at IETF meetings.  


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

   Document Shepherd:  Bob Hinden
   Responsible AD: Terry Manderson

(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

   The document Shepard has followed the process in the working group,
   followed the discussion in the working group, and thinks that the
   issues raised have been resolved in the current draft.

(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

   No, N/A

(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 specific 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?

   Yes, all of the authors have confirmed that there is no IPR and full
   conformance with BCP78 and BCP79.

(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.

(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?

  There is a good consensus around this document.  There has been
  active discussion on the mailing list and at 6man face to face

(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 appeals have been threatened, nor is there any extreme discontent.

(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

  The only ID Nit is that the abstract needs to mention that RFC4861 is
  updated.  This will be fixed in the next version.

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


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

  The document has a separate Normative and Information reference
  section.  References are characterized correctly.

(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, all references are 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.


(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.

  This document will not change the status of any other RFCs.  It does
  update RFC4861, and this is noted in the header.  It needs to be added
  to the Abstract when the next version is published.

(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 IANA actions in the document.

(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.


(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.