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?
-- RFC is 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:
-- This document defines a protocol, BMP, that can be used to monitor
-- BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a convenient interface for
-- obtaining route views. Prior to introduction of BMP, screen-scraping
-- was the most commonly-used approach to obtaining such views. The
-- design goals are to keep BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and
-- minimally service-affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a
-- routing protocol.
-- The BMP protocol provides access to the Adj-RIB-In of a peer on an
-- ongoing basis and a periodic dump of certain statistics the
-- monitoring station can use for further analysis. From a high level,
-- BMP can be thought of as the result of multiplexing together the
-- messages received on the various monitored BGP sessions.
Working Group Summary:
-- The BMP protocol has been a GROW document for quite sometime. The
-- length of time has allowed the document to have multiple implementations
-- completed, along with incorporating working group feedback into the spec
-- and polishing the document. There is strong support in the working group
-- and the community/industry for the protocol. The work has been relatively
-- smooth, with active positive contribution from the community.
-- Because of the strong interest in the protocol, the document has been
-- actively reviewed by numerious people. With the age of the document
-- at least two implementations have been completed in router software,
-- along with software for the monitoring station.
-- Document Shepherd : Peter Schoenmaker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
-- Responsible AD : Joel Jaeggli <email@example.com>
(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 shephered has reviewed the document, along with following
-- and reviewing the comments and reviews by others. The document shepherd
-- believes the document 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. The reviews have been more then sufficient for 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.
-- An early security review has already been requested, which should be no
-- different from the normal one performed as part of the publication process
-- but earlier is better. The review is pending at the time of submission.
(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.
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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?
-- Solid consensus. Not objection, and the working group has been active 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.)
(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.
-- No formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(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?
-- ietf-idr-error-handling is currently in the RFC editor queue.
(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 requires a new group. The values are clearly defined,
-- with all the detailed required.
(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.
-- No expert review is required. The document clearly specifies when a "Standards
-- Action", "Specification Required", or "Experimental" policy is required.
(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 review required.