Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-i2nsf-applicability-14
(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 an Informational RFC.
It is appropriate to be published as “informational RFC” because there is no
protocol or extension specified by the draft.
(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 describes the applicability of Interface to Network Security
Functions (I2NSF) to network-based security services in Network Functions
Virtualization (NFV) environments, such as firewall, deep packet inspection, or
attack mitigation engines.
Working Group Summary
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the
WG to not adopt the document?
This document is specifically written for I2NSF WG as one of the milestones
specified by the I2NSF Charter. This document is not considered by any other
WGs. There was nothing exceptional in the WG processing for this document.
There was careful debate resulting in merging contents from other drafts into
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?
This applicability document is not directly implementable, but it describes how
I2NSF work are used in NFV environment, to achieve software defined security
policy enforcement. At least two organizations are building a system based on
the work of the working group and following this approach as an architecture.
There has also been experimentation at IETF hackathons that is consistent with
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Linda Dunbar (email@example.com) is the document shepherd.
Roman Danyliw (firstname.lastname@example.org) is the 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.
This revision and the previous revision were reviewed by the document shepherd.
All comments arising from the reviews have been addressed. 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 WG is small, but there were a good number of sound reviews. Document
shepherd had suggested to include contents from two other drafts.
(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.
Not required, but the content of the document has been shared with Open Network
User Group (ONUG) Software Defined Security Service WG.
(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No. This document is specifically noted as a deliverable in the WG charter.
(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 authors have been explicitly reminded of their responsibilities under BCP
78 and 79. By placing their names as authors of the document they have
acknowledged those BCPs and agreed to comply with the terms of the IETF's IP
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No. There is no IPR disclosure being filed in reference to this document.
All authors of the document have confirmed that there is no IPR associated with
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and
agree with it?
There has been review and supporting positions across 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.)
(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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable. There is no MIB specified by the document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
The document only has informative references.
(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?
(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
(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 interested community
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).
Not Applicable, as there is no IANA assignments needed by the document.
(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.
Not Applicable, as there is no IANA assignments needed by the document.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections
of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB
No such section, no such review.