Version 2
(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?
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution-09 is now Experimental.
** The document Updates *Extends* RFC8990, and should say so **
(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 proposes a set of solutions for information
distribution in the Autonomic Network Infrastructure (ANI).
Information distribution is categorized into two different modes:
1) instantaneous distribution and
2) publishing for retrieval.
In the former case, the information is sent, propagated and disposed of
after reception. In the latter case, information needs to be stored in the
network; additionally, conflict resolution is also needed when information
stored in the network is updated with proposals from two different AFs.
Working Group Summary:
No.
Document Quality:
The use case section was moved to a non-normative appendix.
While it is well written, the use cases are hypothetical.
No emphasis has been made on Data Backups.
Section 4.2.1 (now 5.2.1) has been rewritten.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Michael Richardson
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Robert Wilton
(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.
This -09 document was read from beginning to end.
The -10 document diff were consulted.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document has not received a lot of attention in the WG, despite 8 years.
The document does not provide a reasonable Security Considerations examination
of what happens with these new GRASP methods.
(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.
No.
(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 running code despite 8 years that the document has been alive.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
One claim was made in 2016:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2915/
The claim relates to an unpublished patent application.
It is now five years later, so the patent should either be visible, or the
claim could perhaps be withdrawn.
(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?
It represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals.
Much of the WG has ignored this 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. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(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.
There are still three unused references according to nits
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None.
(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?
All appear correct.
(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.
None.
(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.
No changes to existing documents are proposed.
(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 8126).
IANA Considerations seem okay in -10.
(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.
None needed.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
There is fragmentary CDDL, but it has not been validated.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
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
RFC8342?
No YANG module.