As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd
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?
This is the proper type of RFC since the sole purpose of the RFC
is to satisfy IANA's need for an RFC publication to deprecate
code points assigned through Standards Action process.
The type is indicated in the 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:
This document requests IANA to deprecate the BGP path attributes DPA,
ADVERTISER, and RCID_PATH / CLUSTER_ID, associated with an abandoned
Internet Draft and a Historic RFC, respectively.
Note that CLUSTER_ID is not the same as, and should not
be confused with, CLUSTER_LIST.
Working Group Summary:
Consensus was clear and there was no dissent. This is not surprising
considering the draft is very short (substantive content: six
We did take the unusual step of running adoption and WGLC in
parallel, with the proviso that if there was any disagreement
at all, we would revert to the usual procedure. There was no
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?
The document merely requests that three code points be deprecated.
The code points are defined in respectively, an abandoned draft
and a Historic RFC.
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
(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.
1) Review the WG LC results with John
2) ran IDNITS on the draft
3) reviewed the abandoned
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-dpa-05 document 4)
reviewed the table for removal
The following will be changed:
BGP Path Attributes
Value code Reference
11 DPA [Chen, E., Bates, T., "Destination Preference
Attribute for BGP",
Work in progress, March 1996.]
(Historic) [RFC1863][RFC4223]13RCID_PATH / CLUSTER_ID
Value code Reference
11 DPA deprecated
12 ADVERTISER deprecated
13 CLUSTER_ID deprecated
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
(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.
AD should verify that this particular change to the IANA table meets
with IANA's approval.
(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?
(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.
(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?
All references are Informative. There is an argument for making them
normative, but then they would be stuck in downref. The argument is
weak anyway, and at least as good an argument can be made for
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
No. While the NITS indicated that RFC1863 might be down level, it is
appropriate for the context.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing 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
The document is basically nothing but an IANA considerations section.
Thus, it is trivially self-consistent.
(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.
(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.