# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
## 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 document has been extensively discussed on the list and during 6MAN
sessions for the last few IETFs. It should be noted that the document just
defines a single bit, while all details about sematnics of that bit are in
scope for the SNAC WG. So the support was expressed mostly by participants who
are active in both areas (6man and snac), but it was a broad agreement between
them that the document is useful (even crucial for SNAC) and shall be moved
forward.
The document was retuned to the 6MAN working to resolve an issue with a
normative reference to <draft-ietf-snac-simple>. After discussion at the last
IETF meeting and on the list, a way to make that reference Informative was
developed, the current version does that. The changes can be seen in this diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03&url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-04&difftype=--html
A new working group last call was completed on 2026-04-23. This resulted in a
few other changes to clarify the document. The chairs believe there is a
consensus to advance again the document to the IESG.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No, the content of the draft did not cause any controversy.
The topic of which group this document belongs (6man or SNAC) was discussed
extensively (see #5 below).
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)?
The OpenThread project already implements this:
https://github.com/openthread/openthread
The author believes that practically all Thread-based products (including
Thread Border Routers in-market and in-development) incorporate the OpenThread
implementation.
## 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.
The sole purpose of this document is to request an RA flag, which will be used
by SNAC routers. Semantics of the flag and how the flag is processed by SNAC
routers are defined in draft-ietf-snac-simple, which belongs to the SNAC WG. So
yes, this document closely interacts with SNAC. Interaction of this draft with
the SNAC was discussed extensively at IETF119 and on the mailing lists. In
particular, both WGs (and their chairs) spent substential amoutn of time
discussion:
- should the flag be defined in a dedicated draft or should it be a part of
draft-ietf-snac-simple? - if it's a separate draft (snac-router-ra-flag), which
WG does it belong to - 6MAN or SNAC - and which group shall adopt it?
After the decision was made to have a separate draft, the draft content was
reviewed by the SNAC WG. The WGLC email was forwared to teh SNAC mailing list
and a number of active SNAC participants expressed their support for advancing
the draft.
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.
No such review required.
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]?
The 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?
I believe that the document defines a key component of the SNAC framework, and,
therefore, is very much needed. The document is well-written and 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?
I've reviewed the list of issues and the document. I do not believe the
document contains any of those issues.
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?
Proposed Standard. This document defines a new Router Advertisement flag, and
therefore needs to be a standard.
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.
The author is not aware of any IPR claims.
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.
The document has one author, who confirmed his willingness to be listed as such.
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.)
I do not see any remaining nits in the document.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
We believe the current set of references are correct. As stated above in
Document History, this version of the document changed the reference for
<draft-ietf-snac-simple> to Informative to allow this document to be published.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
There are 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?
No.
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, publication of this document does not affect any existing RFCs.
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 requires IANA to allocate a new flag from the "IPv6 ND Router
Advertisement flags" registry. The registry is clearly identified and the
reference to the registry is included as a normative one.
Actually an early allocation has been made already, so IANA is happy ;)
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.
There are no new IANA registries defined or referenced in this document.
[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/