BGP Link-State Information Distribution Implementation Report
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-impl-04

AD: Alia Atlas
WG chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares
Shepherd: Jie Dong
Early Reviews: None

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.  (version 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?

Informational
This is an implementation report for draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution.
The Informational type 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

    In order to share network link-state and traffic engineering information collected with external components using the BGP routing protocol, a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format is required.

    This document is an implementation report for the BGP Link-State Information Distribution protocol as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. The scope of the interoperability test is successful encoding and decoding of BGP-LS advertisements.  No application specific logic has been verified.

    The editors did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents.  The respondents are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for which their responses represent.  Respondents were asked to only use the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

    The discussion in IDR shows consensus on this implementation report.

Document Quality

  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?

    This document itself is an implementation report, and indicates 3 implementations of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?

      Jie Dong

  Who is the 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.

    This document is in good shape, while in the document references the protocol specification document draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution should be listed as Normative References, and the version needs be updated.

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

    The document Shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the review on this implementation report.

(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.

      The document shepherd feels comfortable with all sections and the text within the document.

(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.

    Some authors (Balaji and Manish) have not replied to the IPR poll in WG LC yet.
While considering this document is an implementation report, no IPRs should exist in this document.

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

    There is no IPR disclosure on this document.

(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? 

    Strong wide-spread consensus in IDR based on vendor implementations.

(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.)

    Not seen

(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.

    ID-Nits occur with “abstract contains references” and “Outdated reference”. It is anticipated that a new editorial version (-02) will fix these issues.

(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

(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 downward references on normative references.

(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.

    No change of existing RFCs is required by this document.

(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).

    This document makes no request of IANA.

(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.

    This document makes no request of IANA.

(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 automated check required for XML, BNF, MIB definitions.