Shepherd writeup
rfc7726-04

: Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
: 
: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
: Shepherd Write-Up.
: 
: Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
: 
: (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.  Since this updates RFC 5884, which is also 
on the standards track, this status is appropriate.

: (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 clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining
and removing multiple, concurrent BFD sessions for a given 
<MPLS LSP, FEC> described in RFC5884.

: 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.
: 
: 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 received good discussion among the usual key contributors
to the BFD Working Group.  Nothing controversial was discussed, the
clarifications are considered sound practice.

: 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?

RFC 5884 is implemented by a number of vendors that support MPLS and BFD
to verify those MPLS LSPs.  This clarifications document was motivated
by some ambiguities in that RFC which were noted as implementors were
attempting to implement some of the edge cases.  Implementations are
expected to pick up the changes in this document soon if they are not
otherwise implemented already.

This document does not impact backward compatibility.

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

Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Haas, co-chair BFD.
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana.

: (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.

The shepherd was involved in the discussion of the feature, but not a
primary participant.  Editorial passes have been done for language and
technical content.

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

The level of review is considered good.  Additionally, the document
shared its last call with the MPLS Working Group, which has an interest
in the fate of this document.

: (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.

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.

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

No additional IPR has been noted for this document.  Note that the base
RFC 5884 document does have IPR:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=5884&submit=rfc

: (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 is solid consensus behind the document's contents.  The last call
unfortunately suffered from Working Group attention exhaustion and took
a bit of work to get this consensus validated.

: (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.

No nits.

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

None required.

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

All references are normative.

: (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 referenced documents are 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.

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.

Yes.  This document updates RFC 5884 and is flagged appropriately.

: (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).

This document properly asks nothing of IANA.

: (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.

Not applicable.

Back