Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-17

PROTO for draft-ietf-rfc6126bis-07.txt

Final review and initial PROTO entries done by Russ White.

(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. This is the base protocol document for the
  mandatory to implement Homenet routing protocol. Title page header
  says "Standards Track". It obsoletes the experimental standard
  specified in RFCs 6126 and 7557.

(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:

   Babel is a loop-avoiding distance-vector routing protocol that is
   designed to be robust and efficient both in networks using prefix-
   based routing and in networks using flat routing ("mesh networks"),
   and both in relatively stable wired networks and in highly dynamic
   wireless networks.  This document describes the Babel routing
   protocol, and obsoletes RFCs 6126 and 7557

Working Group Summary:

  Nothing of note -- all WG discussions over the changes between 6126
  and 6126bis were resolved.

Document Quality:

  The document is of good quality. There are multiple implementations.
  Also, there are RFC 6126 implementations not yet updated but
  experience has shown these are easily updated to rfc6126bis.

http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/babeld.html
https://github.com/fingon/pybabel
https://bird.network.cz

  And a "reference" implementation, as well. No "vendors" are
  currently planning to implement BABEL at this time (that I know of),
  but there are enough open source implementations to show the
  protocol is both implementable and deployable in the kinds of
  environments for which it is intended.

Personnel:

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

  Donald Eastlake is shepherd
  Martin Vigoureux 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. 

  Reviewed for correctness and with authors. Checked for grammar,
  completeness of sections, etc.

(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. 

  The document has been reviewed by security and routing specialists;
  no other reviews appear to be necessary. See
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/AzjslHG1bVLksmXMs62gLDqeN_M
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/sz2u4ZZZZu1FBAYRyV8CB-VjU8g
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/mQAu74mdYzrdqKHVdmLOqztzE1Y

(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.

  None.

(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. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/vXQjuxjwrZCvyqt5FRwscFDJM1I
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/Y-Gb0pEZmyz9ZTXUp-fpligyHNQ

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

  No IPR has 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?

  Consensus is good, with solid last call participation from normally
  active working group members.

(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.

  id-nits and manual nit checks were performed; there are two outdated
  references, but otherwise the nit checks appear to be good.

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

  No formal reviews should be required beyond what has already been
  completed.

(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.

  No.

(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 obsolete RFC 6126 and 7557 as noted on the title
  page.

(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 IANA considerations section is clear and complete; there are
  some actions to be taken in consideration of this draft, but they
  are reasonable and clear.

(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.

(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.

  id-nits was run across the document; no other automated tools seem
  to apply.
Back