Shepherd writeup

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 1 November 2019.

(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 as a Proposed Standard.
It updates RFC 7752 (a Proposed Standard) and requests IANA action for a registry.
The intended status is shown at the head of the document.

(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:

RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).  IANA created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of sub-registries.  The allocation policy applied by IANA for those policies is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126.

This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance to the Designated Experts.

Working Group Summary:

Working group progress was smooth with some difficulty in getting more comments beyond "Yes, just do it."

Document Quality:

There is nothing to implement in this document: all it does is make a change to an IANA registry.
John Scudder, Donald Eastlake, and Ketan Talaulikar all gave careful reviews.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 

Document Shepherd: Jie Dong <> 
Responsible AD: 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 carried out a careful review of the document and sent comments to the authors. They have updated the document as necessary.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No concerns. The WG has had good opportunity to review the document and a number of BGP experts have commented.

(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. 

The IANA registry concerned has Designated Experts. One is the author of this document, and the other approved the idea of this work.
No other such review needed.

(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. 

No concerns.

(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? 

This is a short procedural draft so getting enthusiastic responses from the working group was hard. This caused the chairs to extend the last call to make sure that there was adequate support.
In the end, eight members of IDR expressed support for this document.
One suggested that "RFC Required" would be a better assignment policy, but they indicated that they could live with "Expert Review" as
described in this 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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

id-nits reports no issues.
id-nits incorrectly suggests that this document is intended to update RFC 8126. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

No formal review criteria apply.
The registry is subject to Designated Expert review - see point 5).

(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? 


(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. 

This document updates RFC 7752.
This is indicated in the header, Abstract, and Introduction.
The whole document describes the nature of the update.

(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 8126). 

The purpose of this document is to describe IANA registry changes.
The document is authored by one of the Designated Experts for this registry.
The document clearly identifies the registry and the actions requested of IANA.
The document also includes clear guidance to Designated Experts.

(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 are created.
The modified registry already has Designated Experts.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

No formal language is used.
idspell reveals a typo s/Gorup/Group/

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools ( for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

No YANG module in this document.