Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-05

(IANA COMMENTS) IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here]. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities regsitry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

the entry for value 0x08 is to be updated as follows:

Sub-Type Value: 0x08
Name: Flow spec redirect AS-2byte format.
Reference: [ RFC5575, RFC-to-be ]
Date: [ TBD-at-registration ]

Second, in the BGP Transitive Extended Community Types subregistry also in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities regsitry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

two new community types are to be registered as follows:

Type Value: 0x81
Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" Registry)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Date: [ TBD-at-registration ]

Type Value: 0x82
Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" Registry)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Date: [ TBD-at-registration ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types registry. The registry is to be a subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities regsitry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

The registry will contain the following note:

"This registry contains values of the second octet (the "Sub-Type" field) of an extended community when the value of the first octet (the "Type" field) is 0x81."

The registation rules for the new registry is as follows (as defined in RFC5226):

RANGE REGISTRATION PROCEDURE

0x00-0xBF First Come First Served
0xC0-0xFF IETF Review

There are initial registrations and reservation in the new registry as follows:

SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME REFERENCE
------------------+--------------------------------+-------------------
0x00-0x07 Unassigned
0x08 Flow spec redirect IPv4 format. [ RFC-to-be ]
0x09-0xff Unassigned

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types registry. The registry is to be a subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities regsitry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

The registry will contain the following note:
"This registry contains values of the second octet (the "Sub-Type" field) of an extended community when the value of the first octet (the "Type" field) is 0x82."

The registration rules for the new registry are as follows (as defined in RFC 5226):

RANGE REGISTRATION PROCEDURE

0x00-0xBF First Come First Served
0xC0-0xFF IETF Review

There are initial registrations and reservation in the new registry as follows:

SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME REFERENCE
------------------+-------------------------------------+-------------------
0x00-0x07 Unassigned
0x08 Flow spec redirect AS-4byte format. [RFC-to-be]
0x09-0xff Unassigned

IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

NOTE: IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document:
- 'Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-07-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document updates RFC 5575 (Dissemination of Flow Specification
  Rules) to clarify the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec Redirect
  Extended Community.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Summary:
Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review

Document status: Proposed standard
AD: Alia Atlas
WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares
Shepherd: Mach Chen
RTR-QA review: Nabil Bitar (ok 10/25) 
IANA-QA review: (11/25/25) , but waiting for secondary review (6/24)
Security review: (4/8/2015): Alexey Melnkov (alexey.melnkov@isode.com) - OK
OPS-DIR QA review: Requested  11/25/2014- Carlos Pignataro (OK)
Gen Art final review: Brian Carpenter (4/11/2015) - Reviewed and comments addressed.

IPR Call:  8/12 - 8/19 - had WG consensus
Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13534.html


Shepherd's review:
------------------
(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.

(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

  This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec
  Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575
  (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules).

Working Group Summary

  The draft intends to address a BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended
  Community registry issue, it's simple and straightforward. There
  are good supports from the WG to publish this document as a
  Proposed Standard RFC.

Document Quality

  The draft has been reviewed by several IDR WG experts, it also
  passed the RTG QA review. All comments received so far have
  been solved.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Mach Chen
  Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas

(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 has reviewed the draft and raised some editoral
  comments that also have been solved in the latest version. After the review,
  the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the
  draft and it is ready for publishment.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec.
No WG issues as seen in mail thread:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13533.html


(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? 

  There is good consensus from the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarizes 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.)
 
  No.

(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.
 
  One nit remains:
 
Missing Reference: 'RFC 5575' is mentioned on line 111, but  not defined.
    This is due to the spare space between "RFC" and "5575".



(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  Not applicable.

(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.

(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.

(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.
 
  Yes, this document intends to update RFC5575 and it is listed in the
  Abstract and 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).
 
  The IANA Considerations section is correct and consistent with the body
  of 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.

  No.

(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.

  Not applicable.

Summary:
Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review

Document status: Proposed standard
AD: Alia Atlas
WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares
Shepherd: Mach Chen
RTR-QA review: Nabil Bitar (ok 10/25) 
IANA-QA review: (11/25/25) , but waiting for secondary review (6/24)
Security review: (4/8/2015): Alexey Melnkov (alexey.melnkov@isode.com) - OK
OPS-DIR QA review: Requested  11/25/2014- Carlos Pignataro (OK)
Gen Art final review: Brian Carpenter (4/11/2015) - Reviewed and comments addressed.

IPR Call:  8/12 - 8/19 - had WG consensus
Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13534.html


Shepherd's review:
------------------
(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.

(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

  This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec
  Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575
  (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules).

Working Group Summary

  The draft intends to address a BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended
  Community registry issue, it's simple and straightforward. There
  are good supports from the WG to publish this document as a
  Proposed Standard RFC.

Document Quality

  The draft has been reviewed by several IDR WG experts, it also
  passed the RTG QA review. All comments received so far have
  been solved.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Mach Chen
  Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas

(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 has reviewed the draft and raised some editoral
  comments that also have been solved in the latest version. After the review,
  the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the
  draft and it is ready for publishment.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec.
No WG issues as seen in mail thread:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13533.html


(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? 

  There is good consensus from the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarizes 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.)
 
  No.

(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.
 
  One nit remains:
 
Missing Reference: 'RFC 5575' is mentioned on line 111, but  not defined.
    This is due to the spare space between "RFC" and "5575".



(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  Not applicable.

(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.

(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.

(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.
 
  Yes, this document intends to update RFC5575 and it is listed in the
  Abstract and 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).
 
  The IANA Considerations section is correct and consistent with the body
  of 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.

  No.

(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.

  Not applicable.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has several questions about some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA is required to complete.

First, in the Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

the existing registration for Type Value 0x08 will have its name updated from:

Flow spec redirect

to:

Flow spec redirect AS-2byte format

and have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

QUESTION: This draft indicates that it updates RFC5575 according to the header information
in the draft.  Is the author intended to remove the existing defining reference from
the registry?


Second, in the BGP Transitive Extended Community Types subregistry also in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

two new registrations will be added as follows:

Type Value: 0x81
Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" Registry)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type Value: 0x82
Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" Registry)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry.

IANA QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in which registry will it be contained?  In the same BGP Extended Communities located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities registry?

IANA QUESTION -> What rules should be used for maintenance of this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry.

QUESTION: What is the range for this new Part 2 Sub-Types registry?

QUESTION: Is the author intended to use the same table format as the existing sub-registry
"Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types" which has
the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and (Registration) Date?

IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Type Value: 0x08
Name: Flow spec redirect IPv4 format
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry.

IANA QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in which registry will it be contained?

IANA QUESTION -> What rules should be used for maintenance of this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry.

QUESTION: What is the range for this new Part 3 Sub-Types registry?

QUESTION: Is the author intended to use the same table format as the existing sub-registry
"Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types" which has
the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and (Registration) Date?

IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Type Value: 0x08
Name: FFlow spec redirect AS-4byte format
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document:
- 'Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec
  Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575
  (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules).




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Summary:
Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review

Document status: Proposed standard
AD: Alia Atlas
WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares
Shepherd: Mach Chen
RTR-QA review: Nabil Bitar (ok 10/25) 
IANA-QA review: (11/25/25)  (No response) 
OPS-DIR QA review: Requested  11/25/2014 (bo response) 
Gen Art final review: Requested 11/25/2014  (no Response)

IPR Call:  8/12 - 8/19 - had WG consensus
Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13534.html


Shepherd's review:
------------------
(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.

(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

  This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec
  Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575
  (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules).

Working Group Summary

  The draft intends to address a BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended
  Community registry issue, it's simple and straightforward. There
  are good supports from the WG to publish this document as a
  Proposed Standard RFC.

Document Quality

  The draft has been reviewed by several IDR WG experts, it also
  passed the RTG QA review. All comments received so far have
  been solved.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Mach Chen
  Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas

(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 has reviewed the draft and raised some editoral
  comments that also have been solved in the latest version. After the review,
  the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the
  draft and it is ready for publishment.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec.
No WG issues as seen in mail thread:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13533.html


(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? 

  There is good consensus from the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarizes 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.)
 
  No.

(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.
 
  One nit remains:
 
Missing Reference: 'RFC 5575' is mentioned on line 111, but  not defined.
    This is due to the spare space between "RFC" and "5575".



(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  Not applicable.

(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.

(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.

(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.
 
  Yes, this document intends to update RFC5575 and it is listed in the
  Abstract and 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).
 
  The IANA Considerations section is correct and consistent with the body
  of 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.

  No.

(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.

  Not applicable.