> # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
> ## 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?
This document reached broad agreement in the BFD WG.
>2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?
There was no controversy.
The only unaddressed feedback was (from Robert Raszuk) that the solution does
not work well with ECMP. This is not specific to this document but is a general
issue with BFD multi-hop. The chairs have chatted about whether BFD WG should
tackle ECMP for BFD multi-hop, we will discuss further at IETF120 (update on
2024-09-02: that discussion hasn't happened yet). Update (2024-10-15): To
clarify: this document doesn't change the fundamentals of BFD and while
Robert's observation is correct, this document follows what is already done in
BFD multi-hop.
>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)?
There is an implementation in JUNOS.
No known potential implementers.
No report of existing implementations.
## 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.
YANG Doctors and SecDir reviews have taken place.
>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.
YANG Doctors review has taken place.
>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]?
0 errors and 0 warnings.
Yes the YANG module complies with NMDA.
>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.
N/A
>## 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?
Yes to all the above.
>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?
No such issues have been identified.
>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 specifies a protocol extension that needs to
be interoperable, i.e. large BFD packets must not be dropped). Datatracker's
"Intended RFC status" has been updated
>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.
Jeff Haas:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KB8qkWlXGmVwUdnBicDSA3oIe6Q/
Albert Fu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/
>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.
Yes. Only 2 authors.
>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.)
None.
>15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
>16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?
None.
>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.
None.
>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?
None.
>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 status change.
>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]).
N/A
>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.
N/A
[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/