Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Document shepherd write-up for

> (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?

This document is requested for publication as a Proposed Standard document.

This is appropriate because the document defines a new type of the
 Generalized Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI) TLV to
 extend the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol.

This track is noted in the document 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:

A network may contain links with variable discrete bandwidth, e.g., copper,
radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links may change
 discretely in reaction to changing external environment. Availability is
 typically used for describing such links during network planning. This
 document defines a new type of the Generalized Switching Capability-specific
 information (SCSI) TLV to extend the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing
 protocol. The extension can be used for route computation in a network
that contains links with variable discrete bandwidth.

> Working Group Summary:

This document has been reviewed by both CCAMP and TEAS WGs and received some
comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.Particularly, it was
discussed how to organize the documents to make it generic to apply to multiple
technologies,which leads to [draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi].

This doucument was gone through by a joint WG last call between CCAMP and TEAS

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

> Document Quality:

The document is concise and only defines Availability sub-TLV as a sub-TLV of
ISCD as defined in RFC4203.

> Personnel:

Fatai Zhang is the Document 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 the
document 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.

No such content.

> (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 WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that
they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. The replies have been
tracked in the datatracker and can be found 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 disclosures.

No disclosures have been made.

> (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 has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus
on the document.

> (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 thorough.

No Nides found.

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

No such reviews needed.

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

All references correctly identified.

> (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?

None such.

> (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.


> (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.


> (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 section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd.  One new
allocation is requested in this document that is properly identified.

> (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.

One new registry is requested and it requires Standards Action as
defined in [RFC5226].

> (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.