As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. This is based on the 24 February 2012 form:
Document Shepherd: Qin Wu (email@example.com)
WG chairs: Susan Hares and Jeff Haas
AD responsible: Deborah Brungard
RFC type: informational
Routing Reviewer: Eric Gray
OPS-DIR Reviewer: Sarah Banks
Gen-art Reviewer: Russ Housley
SEC-DIR Reviewer: Stephen Kent
As modern networks grow in scale and complexity, the need for rapid
and dynamic control increases. With scale, the need to automate even
the simplest operations is important, but even more critical is the
ability to quickly interact with more complex operations such as
In order to enable network applications to have access to and control
over information in the Internet's routing system, we need a publicly
documented interface specification. The interface needs to support
real-time, asynchronous interactions using data models and encodings
that are efficient and potentially different from those available
today. Furthermore, the interface must be tailored to support a
variety of use cases.
This document expands upon these statements of requirements to
provide a detailed problem statement for an Interface to the Routing
Working Group Summary
Consensus was complete in the working group after 2 year of review
Document is ready to ship, but there is one unused reference RFC4292 which might link to Appendix A,
suggest to add reference to where it was referenced in this document.
(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
Review was an editorial, nits, and technical.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Due to the new direction of this work, early reviews were requested.
Reviews for OPS-DIR, RTR-DIR, GEN-ART, and SEC-DIR have been done.
There are no concerns from document Shepherd.
(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
Due Security and operational complexity of the I2RS dynamic state approach,
early reviews were requested from OPS-DIR, RTR-DIR, SEC-DIR, and GEN-ART.
(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
(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.
Call for IPR done on list. Awaiting David Ward and Thomas Nadeau's response.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
IPR has been requested (even if questionable on problem statements):
Still awaiting Thomas Nadeau and David Ward's response.
(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?
This document has strong consensus in the I2RS 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.
No conflict on the document or discontent.
(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
(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 criteria as a problem statement.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, there is only informative references. 3 are RFCs and 2 are WG I-Ds.
(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 procedure.
no downward normative references.
(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 change to other 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).
Not applicable since this is a problem statement.
(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 additional IANA registries.
(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 XML, BNF, MIB definitions in draft.