draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07 shepherd 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?
Standards Track.
This document defines extensions to OSPFv3.
Yes. It is 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
This document describes the OSPFv3 protocol extensions required for
BIER with MPLS encapsulation. Support for other encapsulation types
is outside the scope of this document. The use of multiple
encapsulation types is outside the scope of this document.
Working Group Summary
There is a solid consensus for this document in both the WG LC
and adoption call.
Document Quality
There is a solid consensus for this document in the WG. It is ready
for publication. No implementation is announced in the WG. No formal
language is used in the document. No aspects of the document required
expert review. Two OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs need IETF Review or
IESG Approval.
Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Huaimo Chen.
The Responsible Area Director is Andrew Alston.
(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 has reviewed version 7 of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions
and the emails in the mailing list.
The shepherd believes that this version is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(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.
The shepherd does not have any concerns.
(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?
There is not any IPR disclosure.
The shepherd emailed the authors and got the responses from all 3 authors.
(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?
The WG consensus for this document is very solid.
The WG as a whole.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs
to be thorough.
No nits found (see results below).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
(The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
ID-Checklist requires).
-- The document date (30 November 2022) is 123 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
No issues found here.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
N/A.
(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 (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.
No.
(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).
The document requests two new allocations from the
"OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry defined in [RFC8362].
These allocations need IETF Review or IESG Approval.
(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.
N/A.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?
N/A.