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)?
A: Informational RFC
Q: Why is this the proper type of RFC?
A: This is a non-normative architectural document providing design guidelines,
not a protocol specification.
Q: Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
A: Yes.
Q: (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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.
A: The goal of this document is to define a general architecture for
IPv6-based home networking, describing the associated principles,
considerations and requirements. The text briefly highlights specific
implications of the introduction of IPv6 for home networking, discusses the
elements of the architecture, and suggests how standard IPv6 mechanisms and
addressing can be employed in home networking. The architecture describes the
need for specific protocol extensions for certain additional functionality. It
is assumed that the IPv6 home network is not actively managed, and runs as an
IPv6-only or dual-stack network. There are no recommendations in this text for
the IPv4 part of the network.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?
A: The general architectural principles appear to be well supported and
understood. Whilst there have been some controversial discussions within the
WG, those have tended to be around potential future implementation decisions
rather than with the architecture as a whole.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?
A: There have been two formal WG last calls, with a number of reviewers.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
A: Ray Bellis, Ted Lemon
(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.
A: Document has been reviewed by a number of individuals, the WG Area Director,
100s of emails exchanged, and 10 versions over 2.5 years.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
A: 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.
A: Homenet is widely attended and has a large email subscriber base, but, no,
we have not reached out for a community-specific review.
(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.
A: The shepherd has no specific concerns. The responsible area director has
followed this group closely.
(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?
A: Written confirmation has been received from all authors.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
A: There have been no disclosures filed against this 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?
A: The WG chairs believe the consensus on what is in this document is not
unanimous, but is solid. Areas of concern have been discussed at length,
wordsmithed, and general agreement achieved.
(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.)
A: 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.
A: Yes - part of the tool submission
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
A: N/A
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
A: 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?
A: 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?
A: No.
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.
A: N/A
(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).
A: N/A
(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.
A: N/A
(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.
A: N/A