Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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?

>Informational. This is a framework document, the informational type is
appropriate and correctly indicated in the front page. Although the document
contains some RFC 2119 language, this is limited to very high-level
requirements for the design of the related YANG models and protocol extensions.
A note in section 1.1 explains the usage of RFC2119 language.

(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

>The control and management of DWDM interfaces are a precondition for
   enhanced multilayer networking.  They are needed to ensure an
   efficient data transport, to meet the requirements requested by
   today's IP-services and to provide a further automation of network
   provisioning and operations.  This document describes use cases,
   requirements and solutions for the control and management of optical
   interface parameters according to different types of single channel
   DWDM interfaces.  The focus is on automating the network provisioning
   process irrespective on how it is triggered i.e. by EMS, NMS or
   GMPLS.  This document covers management and control considerations in
   different scenarios of single channel DWDM interfaces.  The purpose
   is to identify the necessary information and processes to be used by
   control or management systems to properly and efficiently drive the

Working Group Summary
>This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP and received comments both during
the meetings and on the mailing list. It is supported by vendors and service
providers and received no objection.

Document Quality
> The documents has already gone through a routing directorate review and all
comments have been addressed. No further particular review is needed in
addition to general ones to make sure the document is fully understandable and
well written.

>Daniele Ceccarelli is the shepherd
>Deborah Brungard 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.
>The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of thedocument and
believes it is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
> No concerns

(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.
> None in particular.

(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.
> No such 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.
> The reply of each single author and contributor has been recorded in the
history of the document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> No IPR disclosed against the document.

(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 document is supported by most of the vendors and service provider active
in the WG.

(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 threats or discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> No issue found by the tool.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
> No such review needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
> Yes, all the references have been identified correctly.

(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?
> Normative references only include 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.
> No downward references.

(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 change to 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).
>The IANA consideration section does not include any request to 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.
>No such sections.