Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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 ( - 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

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. 


  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?  


(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.


(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

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

(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.) 

(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
  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?

(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.
  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.


(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.