Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15

Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated January 11, 2017.

draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09 write-up

(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?

   Proposed standard.  The document then defines a general protocol 
   for discovery, synchronization and negotiation for the Autonomic
   Network. The type of RFC is clearly indicated in the title page
   header.
   
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
or introduction.

   This document describes the requirements for a signaling 
   protocol that enables autonomic devices and autonomic service 
   agents to dynamically discover peers, to synchronize state with 
   them, and to negotiate parameter settings mutually with them.
   The document then defines a general protocol for discovery, 
   synchronization and negotiation, which can be suitable for variable
   technical objectives. The technical objectives for specific scenarios
   out of scope.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough? 

  This document was called draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol 
  prior to its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of 
  adoption and none against), so this document was adopted in August
  2015. There was interest in this work posts since its adoption. 
  There was never any opposition for this work.
  
  This document went through a relevant long document development
  period (10 months for individual document period, 17 month for WG 
  document period). It has been reviewed well.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a 
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was
a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the 
request posted? 

  This document went through multiple reviews by multiple WG
  participants.  There are at least two existing implementations. 
  Both Cisco and Huawei showed interests to implement the specification

Personnel:

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

  Sheng Jiang is the document shepherd.
  Terry Manderson is the responsible AD.
  
(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 reviewed this document thorough once for -05 versions (and had
  other minor comments from time to time):
  
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg02045.html  
  
  The issues raised in my reviews were promptly addressed by authors
  in -06 version along with the comments from other ANIMA WG members.  
  This document -09 version is ready for publication in my opinion.
  
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

  No.
  
(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.

  There are no outstanding issues.

(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. The authors, Brian Carpenter, Carsten Bormann, and Bing Liu have
  confirmed in writing that they are not aware of any IPR, and that any 
  and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with 
  the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.
  
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.
  
(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 was broad support for this document. It was reviewed by active WG 
  participants. All changes were mostly minor.
  
(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. There was unanimous support for this work and nobody raised any objections.
  
(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.

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

  No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar apply to this
  document.
  
(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. All normative 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.

  Yes. There are one no downard normative references.
  draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl. It is intended to be adopted by 
  the new CBOR WG and it is a chartered WG item with a milestone of October
  2017. Alternatively, this GRASP draft could add an Appendix that defines
  the specific GRASPS subset of CDDL formally in ABNF, and reduce 
  the CDDL draft reference to Informational.

(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. This document does not update any existing RFCs.

(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).

  IANA is asked to assign 2 multicast addresses for ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR
  multicast address (IPv6) and ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv4);
  1 port for both UDP and TCP: GRASP_LISTEN_PORT.

  IANA is requested to create a GRASP Parameter Registry including
  two registry tables: the GRASP Messages and Options Table and the
  GRASP Objective Names Table. In the the GRASP Messages and Options 
  Table, 18 intial values are assigned for M_NOOP, M_DISCOVERY,
  M_RESPONSE, M_REQ_NEG, M_REQ_SYN, M_NEGOTIATE, M_END, M_WAIT,
  M_SYNCH, M_FLOOD, M_INVALID, O_DIVERT, O_ACCEPT, O_DECLINE,
  O_IPv6_LOCATOR, O_IPv4_LOCATOR, O_FQDN_LOCATOR and O_URI_LOCATO. There is
  no initial value assigned in the GRASP Objective Names Table.
  
  All the necessary information is in the IANA considerations document. It is
  clear enough that the IANA will be able to implement it.
  
(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 such registry is requested in this document.
  
(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.

  There are no such parts to the document.
Back