Shepherd writeup
rfc8357-10

Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-05.txt:

(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 is the proper type because it defines new
DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options. Both require standards track.

(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 specifies an optional mechanism that lets the DHCPv4 and
DHCPv6 relays to use different UDP ports than the standard ones,
defined in RFC2131 and RFC3315.

Working Group Summary: 

This document has been presented in Berlin (IETF'96) and adopted
in Oct. 2016. Even though the concept is very simple, there was
an healthy discussion before it went through a successful WLGC in
April 2017.

Document Quality: 

I found 72 posts to DHC related to this draft (note it was named
client-port in its individual submission phase). There was never
any opposition to the concept, just couple improvement areas that
were addressed. This has been reviewed by a number of interested
and knowledgable people.

Personnel: 

Tomek Mrugalski is the document shepherd. Suresh Krishnan is the current
responsible AD. 

(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. 

I reviewed this document late in its life cycle (-05) and I had no
specific comments. The concept is simple and well explained, the
option formats and their usage is well defined. The option formats
follow RFC7227. This document is ready for publication in my opinion.

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

No, this document has had sufficient review.

(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 document is good as written, it is useful and I'm aware of at
least two implementations that have implemented this.

(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, both authors confirmed in writing that they are not aware
of any IPR claims related to this draft.

(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? 

There is a consensus behind thid document. Several well known DHC
experts and a few newcomers reviewed this draft and expressed
support for this. This is a minor extension that affects only those
who chose to deploy it. As such, people not interested were passive,
but not objected.

(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. 

There are none. (The one reported by idnits tool about the publication
date being 49 days in the past is a non-issue.)

(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.

(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 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. This document extends, but not updates RFC2131 and RFC3315. This
is an optional extension. Vendors are free to not implement this if
they chose so. Therefore it does not update the base spec 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). 

This draft defines one new DHCPv4 and one new DHCPv6 option. All IANA
actions are well defined and the registries to be updated are 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. 

There are no new IANA registries requested by this draft.

(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. 

There are no such parts to the document.
Back