Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions

draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-12.txt

(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?

Standards Track.

This is correctly indicated in the document header.

Standards stack is appropriate to this document. The document specifies
protocol extensions to ANCP, defining new TLVs that require the allocation of
code points from the ANCP registry.

(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:

This document specifies the extensions to the Access Node Control
   Protocol required for support of the multicast use cases defined in
   the Access Node Control Protocol framework document and one
   additional use case described in this document.  These use cases are
   organized into the following ANCP capabilities:

   o  NAS-initiated multicast replication;

   o  conditional access with white and black lists;

   o  conditional access with grey lists;

   o  bandwidth delegation;

   o  committed bandwidth reporting.

   These capabilities may be combined according to the rules given in
   this specification.

Working Group Summary:

The document specifies a solution to a set of multicast use cases for ANCP.
These use cases are largely specified in RFC5851. That framework draft also
contains use cases for the base ANCP protocol, which is specified in RFC6320.
The multicast solution was split from the other use case solutions that were
eventually published in RFC6320 because, at the time, it was felt that the
multicast solution needed further development and review.

Document Quality:

There are no concerns with document quality. It is believed that there is at
least one implementation of the protocol extensions described in the draft, and
it has had significant review and refinement over a number of years.

There are no formal review criteria.

Personnel:

Matthew Bocci is the document shepherd.
Ted Lemon is the responsible Area Director.

(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 IESG.

I have reviewed the document a number of times during its development,
including the latest version. The document is well written and i believe it is
ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been through two working group last calls in the ANCP working
group. It has received significant review and discussion in the WG over a
number of years. I am comfortable with the level of review that it has received.

(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.

None 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 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. I have received IPR statements from all of the authors.

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

There is one IPR declaration (#1426) against v03 of the draft. This was
declared on an early version of the draft and no issues have been raised during
draft development or during last call.

(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?

The document has been through two WG last calls. However, the participation in
ANCP has dropped substantially in recent years, the authors of tho document
representing a large portion of the currently active participants. Due to the
long timescale of the development of the draft, the chairs also asked the WG
list for statements of interest in progressing the draft. Sufficient interest
was indicated. I believe there is WG consensus on the draft.

(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.)

None indicated.

(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.

ID nits passes. There is one warning about a normative reference to an IANA
registry (non-RFC), but this seems to be erroneous.

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

There are no formal review criteria.

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

Yes.

(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

(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 normative references.

(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 document updates RFC6320 in the sense that it makes changes to the
allocation policies in some ANCP registries that were originally created by RFC
6320. The updates are to allocate a previously reserved code point (0x03) in
the ANCP capability types registry, and to change the starting point for future
reservations from the consensus range in the ANCP result codes registry. I am
comfortable with these changes as they appear to fix errors in the original
establishment of the registries.

(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).

The document requests new allocations from the existing ANCP registries. These
are clearly indicated in tabular form in the IANA considerations section of the
document, and appear consistent with the requests contained in the body of the
document.

There is one request to assign value 3 from the ANCP capability type registry.
This value is currently marked as ‘reserved’ rather than ‘unassigned’, based on
RFC6320. This value was originally reserved for use with the multicast draft in
mind, but it appears this comment is missing from the IANA registry. Given that
there are already implementations of the ANCP multicast extensions, I believe
it is reasonable for IANA to assign this value as requested in the draft.

Furthermore, there are some assignment requests that do not follow sequentially
from the existing start point for assignments in the IANA registries e.g. for
the ANCP result code registry. Given the existing implementation base, it would
be reasonable to simply allow these assignments, despite slight fragmentation
of the existing unassigned code point space. The allocation policies in the
IANA result code registry should be updated as requested in the draft.

(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.

No new IANA 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.

None required.
Back