Shepherd writeup
rfc8538-16

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)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
Proposed Standard. 
It defines protocol extensions to BGP.
The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.

(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

   The current BGP Graceful Restart mechanism limits the usage of BGP
   Graceful Restart to BGP protocol messages other than a BGP
   NOTIFICATION message.  This document defines an extension to the BGP
   Graceful Restart that permits the Graceful Restart procedures to be
   performed when the BGP speaker receives a BGP NOTIFICATION Message or
   the Hold Time expires.  This document also defines a new BGP
   NOTIFICATION Cease Error subcode whose effect is to request a full
   session restart instead of a Graceful Restart.

Working Group Summary

  IDR has reviewed and discussed this document over 3 years (2014-2017).   
  WG has reached consensus after several revisions.
  There was some discussion about the early allocation of a new subcode 
  from the "BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry for this 
  document. The IANA early allocation procedure has been followed, and 
  a temporary code has been allocated by IANA. 

Document Quality

  There are two implementations of this document reported. 

  RtgDir QA review on -07 version:
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg15812.html
  
  RtgDir review on -07 version:
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16157.html

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Jie Dong
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana

(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 shepherd performed the review on:
1) Nits
2) Technical review  
3) Implementation report
4) IPR check
The document shepherd think the current version (-12) 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.

(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.
Nothing beyond the normal checks. 

(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.
None.

(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.

Keyur Patel: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nwR_8D5Oj1esd53WqVffxR5y1M8

Rax Fernando: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ETc73_nC3JBKPjZMCLqd7_bFAI8

John Scudder: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7u2idOpxSFKLHdld99JuaeFnxPs

Jeff Haas:  no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wjJFUp3PIzqxHzQ2v0Tu8u828WY

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR Disclosure.

(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 according to the review and discussion on the list.

(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.) 
None.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://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.
Not relevant for MIB Doctor, Media type, or URI. 
	
(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. All normative references are RFCs.

(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. 
None.

(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.
RFC 4724 is updated by this document. 
Yes RFC 4724 is listed on the title page header, abstract, and discussed in
the introduction.

(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).

IANA has performed the early allocation of subcode 9, named "Hard Reset", 
in the "BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registryā€¯.
Upon publication of this document as an RFC, IANA is requested to make 
this allocation permanent.

(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 new 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 review of automated checks required.
Back