Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication
draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-08

[Ballot comment]
It would help if the document said, right up in the Introduction, that the purpose of this is to increase the valid length of the Shutdown Communication to 255 octets, up from 128, because 128 turned out not to be enough for translation of reasonable strings into some languages, such as Russian.  Such a statement might have made it clearer to the IESG, and perhaps to other reviewers, and will likely help other readers understand why this update is being made.

To respond to Alissa's comment about what we might do to avoid this in future is that it's correct that an Internationalization review probably would not have picked up that 128 octets might not be enough for, say, Russian translation of common messages.  I guess we could try doing sample translations before settling on maximum field lengths.  I suspect that the effort is likely not worth it, given how infrequently this has turned out to be a problem so far.  I don't see other I18N issues with this document.

I have one text suggestion, as this point has been confusing to people in the past:
OLD
      Note that when the Shutdown Communication contains multibyte
      characters, the number of characters will be less than the length
      value.
NEW
      Note that UTF-8 often encodes a single Unicode character as
      multiple octets. When the Shutdown Communication contains
      such multibyte characters, the length value (in UTF-8 octets) will
      be greater than the number of Unicode characters.
END

[Ballot comment]
Please respond to the Gen-ART review.

For the IESG: it would be good to discuss a bit if there is some process we can use to avoid this kind of oversight (that occurred with RFC 8203) in the future. i18ndir didn't exist when it was published, but even if it had I'm not sure we would have caught this.

[Ballot discuss]
"If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
  speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
  an error, the consequence of which is a log message.  For this
  reason, operators would be wise to keep shutdown communications to
  less than 128 octets when feasible."

I have a similar question to what Éric asked. Doesn't the above mostly undercut the value of doing this bis at all? If operators can't expect longer messages to be understood, will they implement some kind of policy logic or heuristics to decide when to try to send them and when not? Otherwise, under what circumstances will they send them?

Was it considered to instead add a new subcode to the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION subcode registry to capture this case (admin reset or shutdown with long shutdown message)? That way at least those who want to use it can differentiate between recipients that don't support RFC 8203, those that do, and those that support longer communications. I'm not at all steeped in BGP so I'm happy to drop this if it's unworkable, but I wanted to ask.

[Ballot comment]
For the IESG: it would be good to discuss a bit if there is some process we can use to avoid this kind of oversight (that occurred with RFC 8203) in the future. i18ndir didn't exist when it was published, but even if it had I'm not sure we would have caught this.

[Ballot discuss]
"If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
  speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
  an error, the consequence of which is a log message.  For this
  reason, operators would be wise to keep shutdown communications to
  less than 128 octets when feasible."

I have a similar question to what Éric asked. Doesn't the above mostly undercut the value of doing this bis at all? If operators can't expect longer messages to be understood, under what circumstances will they send them?

I'm not at all steeped in BGP operations, but was it considered to instead add a new subcode to the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION subcode registry to capture this case (admin reset or shutdown with long shutdown message)? That way at least those who want to use it can differentiate between recipients that don't support RFC 8203, those that do, and those that support longer communications.

[Ballot comment]
For the IESG: it would be good to discuss a bit how we can avoid this kind of oversight (that occurred with RFC 8203) in the future.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

I found this short document to be easy to read and understand, so thank you for that.

One minor nit, which you are free to take or leave:

2.  Shutdown Communication

    0                  1                  2                  3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | Error Code 6  |    Subcode    |    Length    |    ...      \
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              /
  \                                                              \
  /                ... Shutdown Communication ...                /
  \                                                              \
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

It would be nice to link the "Error Code 6" back to its definition of "Cease".  E.g. this could be done in the preceding paragraph 'Error Code 6 ("Cease")', by defining the Error Code field below the packet diagram (e.g. as is done for the Subcode field).

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

I found this short document to be easy to read and understand, so thank you for that.

One minor nit, which you are free to take or leave:

2.  Shutdown Communication

    0                  1                  2                  3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | Error Code 6  |    Subcode    |    Length    |    ...      \
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              /
  \                                                              \
  /                ... Shutdown Communication ...                /
  \                                                              \
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

It would be nice to link the "Error Code 6" back to its definition of "Cease".  E.g. this could be done in the preceding paragraph (Error Code 6 "Cease"), by defining the Error Code field below the packet diagram (e.g. as is done for the Subcode field).

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this clear and well-written document.  Just a couple minor comments;
no reply necessary.

Section 4

  If a Shutdown Communication with an invalid UTF-8 sequence is
  received, a message indicating this event SHOULD be logged for the

Could we say "invalid or non-shortest-form-encoded UTF-8 sequence"?
I had started a comment on section 2 about the error handling, but then
I saw that there was already an error handling section!

Section 7.2

Some die-hards might argue that the "SHOULD include methods such as
syslog" promotes RFC 5424 to a normative reference, but I won't make a
big deal about it.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this short and easy to read document.

Non-blocking comment/question: I really wonder what is the use of this document (message of 0-255 octets) vs. RFC 8203 (message of 0-127 octets) especially when using the same code points... 128 octets is already a long message in ASCII (less of course in UTF-8) and there is no way to know whether the receiving BGP speaker supports this document. I.e., except within a domain, there is little use of this document. What did I get wrong ?

Regards

-éric

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes subregistry in the BGP Error (Notification) Codes registry on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/

The two existing registrations:

Value: 2
Name: Administrative Shutdown
Reference: [RFC4486][RFC8203]

and

Value: 4
Name: Administrative Reset
Reference: [RFC4486][RFC8203]

will have their reference changed.

IANA Question --> Is [ RFC-to-be ] to be added to the existing references or is [ RFC-to-be ] to replace the existing references?

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-07-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, shares@ndzh.com, Susan Hares , idr-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown
Communication'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-07-14. 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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis/



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

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)

Normal Shepherd's report
-------------
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  Support was given in IDR and grow (OPS BGP review)

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis

  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
   

Personnel
  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review):  Chris Hoops
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): Dan Romascanu

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
1) review of NITS
2) review of IANA section

Latest comment
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6yscvd_JEgFLK2zGPJgZcYA9GKE/

3) review of implementations - this is correction to earlier RFC that is deployed


    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Shepherd's latest review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2ooFpk69v3LNWIuDASurcaacmIk



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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA - indicate ready to go.
Scrub 2X by authors.

(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?

No

(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None
Nits comments below -- but this was chased multiple times
and the authors gave permissions. 
See comments on mail list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg/


    RFC5378 checks: 2006-01-25)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.


(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? 

Solid consensus with strong operator support (Grow).

(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.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No - boiler plate check already [see discussion with Alvaro Retana ]

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? 
yes

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.


(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).

No

(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.
    IANA is requested to reference this document at
  subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative
  Reset" in the "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under
  the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to
  [RFC4486] and [RFC8203].

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)

Normal Shepherd's report
-------------
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  Support was given in IDR and grow (OPS BGP review)

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis

  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
   

Personnel
  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review):  Chris Hoops
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): Dan Romascanu

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
1) review of NITS
2) review of IANA section

Latest comment
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6yscvd_JEgFLK2zGPJgZcYA9GKE/

3) review of implementations - this is correction to earlier RFC that is deployed


    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Shepherd's latest review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2ooFpk69v3LNWIuDASurcaacmIk



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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA - indicate ready to go.
Scrub 2X by authors.

(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?

No

(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None
Nits comments below -- but this was chased multiple times
and the authors gave permissions. 
See comments on mail list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg/


    RFC5378 checks: 2006-01-25)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.


(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? 

Solid consensus with strong operator support (Grow).

(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.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No - boiler plate check already [see discussion with Alvaro Retana ]

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? 
yes

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.


(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).

No

(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.
    IANA is requested to reference this document at
  subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative
  Reset" in the "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under
  the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to
  [RFC4486] and [RFC8203].

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)

Normal Shepherd's report
-------------
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  Support was given in IDR and grow (OPS BGP review)

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis

  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
   

Personnel
  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review):  Chris Hoops
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): Dan Romascanu

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
1) review of NITS
2) review of IANA section
3) review of implementations - this is correction to earlier RFC that is deployed


    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Shepherd's latest review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2ooFpk69v3LNWIuDASurcaacmIk



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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA - indicate ready to go.
Scrub 2X by authors.

(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?

No

(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None
Nits comments below -- but this was chased multiple times
and the authors gave permissions. 

    RFC5378 checks: 2006-01-25)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.


(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? 

Solid consensus with strong operator support (Grow).

(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.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No - boiler plate check already [see discussion with Alvaro Retana ]

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? 
yes

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.


(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).

No

(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.
    IANA is requested to reference this document at
  subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative
  Reset" in the "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under
  the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to
  [RFC4486] and [RFC8203].

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)

Status:  Need IANA section changed, and Implementation report on BIRD fixed.

Required change in document (nit level)

IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations
Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Normal Shepherd's report
-------------
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  Support was given in IDR and grow (OPS BGP review)

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis

  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
   

Personnel
  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review):  Chris Hoops
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): Dan Romascanu

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
Shepherd review references:
#1 - Pre-WG LC shepherd report
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg

1.  Nits:
  found: update RFC4486 (pre-RFC5378) work so BCP78 disclaimer needed
However the BCP78 rights were granted with RFC8203.
This was confirmed by retrieving this email.
[Thanks to John Scudder for recalling this as the RFC8203 shepherd]

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Shepherd's latest review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2ooFpk69v3LNWIuDASurcaacmIk

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

2. check of implementation reports: Please fix

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA - indicate ready to go.

(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?

No

(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

Solid consensus with strong operator support (Grow).

(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.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No - boiler plate check already [see discussion with Alvaro Retana ]

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? 
yes

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.


(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).

No - just update to

(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.
    IANA is requested to reference this document at
  subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative
  Reset" in the "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under
  the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to
  [RFC4486] and [RFC8203].

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)

Status:  Need IANA section changed, and Implementation report on BIRD fixed.

Required change in document (nit level)

IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations
Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Normal Shepherd's report
-------------
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  Support was given in IDR and grow (OPS BGP review)

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis

  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
   

Personnel
  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review):  Chris Hoops
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): Dan Romascanu

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
Shepherd review references:
#1 - Pre-WG LC shepherd report
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg

1.  Nits:
  found: update RFC4486 (pre-RFC5378) work so BCP78 disclaimer needed
However the BCP78 rights were granted with RFC8203.
This was confirmed by retrieving this email.
[Thanks to John Scudder for recalling this as the RFC8203 shepherd]

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Shepherd's latest review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2ooFpk69v3LNWIuDASurcaacmIk

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

2. check of implementation reports: Please fix

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA - indicate ready to go.

(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?

No

(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

Solid consensus with strong operator support (Grow).

(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.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No - boiler plate check already [see discussion with Alvaro Retana ]

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? 
yes

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.


(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).

No - just update to

(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.
    IANA is requested to reference this document at
  subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative
  Reset" in the "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under
  the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to
  [RFC4486] and [RFC8203].

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)

Status: 1) waiting for early reviews:  RTG-DIR QA review, and OPS-DIR QA Review.
              2) waiting for updates to implemntation report for OpenBSD and BIRD
              3) Waiting on -05  with changes below
   
Required change in document:
In introduction:  Add to end of paragraph 1:  /This draft obsoletes RFC8203./
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations
Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Normal Shepherd's report
-------------
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  Support was given in IDR and grow (OPS BGP review)

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis

  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
    [TBD] RTG-DIR early review
    [TBD] OPS-DIR early review

Personnel

  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review): TBD 
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): TBD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
Shepherd review references:
#1 - Pre-WG LC shepherd report
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg

1.  Nits:
  found: update RFC4486 (pre-RFC5378) work so BCP78 disclaimer needed
However the BCP78 rights were granted with RFC8203.
This was confirmed by retrieving this email.
[Thanks to John Scudder for recalling this as the RFC8203 shepherd]

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Shepherd's latest review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NOfNx_WYnbOmGE0pAMf6-hrzLtw

Shepherd's Required text changes: 
a)  IANA Considerations
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

2. check of implementation reports
  Unclear how OpenBSD and BIRD fill in the implementation document.
  Authors must change

3.  NITS on the BCP78 rights for RFCRFC4486 are incorrect.
    These rights have already been granted to the IETF in RFC8203.

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA should be done.

(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?

No

(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

Solid consensus with strong operator support (Grow).

(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.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

1.  Nits:
  found an in correct request for BCP78 rights for RFCRFC4486.
    Rights have already been granted with RFC8203.
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.
[TBD:  RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction]

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? 

[-05] required for RFC8203 obsoletion in 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.


(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).

[TBD] fill in after check

(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.

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)

Status: 1) requested RTG-DIR QA review, and OPS-DIR QA Review.
              2) Asking Alvaro's comment on NITS issue
              3) Will not pass until editorial change in section 5

Required change in document:
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations
Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Normal Shepherd's report
-------------
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  Support was given in IDR and grow (OPS BGP review)

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis

  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
    [TBD] RTG-DIR early review
    [TBD] OPS-DIR early review

Personnel

  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review): TBD 
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): TBD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
Shepherd review references:
#1 - Pre-WG LC shepherd report
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg

1.  Nits:
  found: update RFC4486 (pre-RFC5378) work so BCP78 disclaimer needed (see below)
  (TBD: Asked for Alvaro's guidance)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document

Shepherd's Required Changes:
2.1) above nits needs to be resolved
2.3) IANA Considerations
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

3. check of implementation reports
  Unclear how OpenBSD and BIRD fill in the imoplementation document.
  Authors must change

----

If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
[leave question until IESG send]

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA should be done.

(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?

No


(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

[tbd]

(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.)

[TBD]

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.
[TBD:  RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction]

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?  [TBD]

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.


(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).

[TBD] fill in after check

(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.

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)

Status: 1) requested RTG-DIR QA review, and OPS-DIR QA Review.
              2) Asking Alvaro's comment on NITS issue
              3) Will not pass until editorial change in section 5

Required change in document:
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations
Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Normal Shepherd's report
-------------

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  Support was given in IDR and grow (OPS BGP review)

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis

  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
    [TBD] RTG-DIR early review
    [TBD] OPS-DIR early review

Personnel

  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review): TBD 
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): TBD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
Shepherd review references:
#1 - Pre-WG LC shepherd report
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg

1.  Nits:
  found: update RFC4486 (pre-RFC5378) work so BCP78 disclaimer needed (see below)
  (TBD: Asked for Alvaro's guidance)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document

Shepherd's Required Changes:
2.1) above nits needs to be resolved
2.3) IANA Considerations
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

3. check of implementation reports
  Unclear how OpenBSD and BIRD fill in the imoplementation document.
  Authors must change

----

If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
[leave question until IESG send]

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA should be done.

(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?

No


(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

[tbd]

(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.)

[TBD]

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.
[TBD:  RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction]

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?  [TBD]

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.


(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).

[TBD] fill in after check

(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.

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)
date: 6/7/2017

Status: Awaiting version-05 before send to RTG-DIR QA review, and OPS-DIR QA Review.
WG LC Status: Awaiting version -05 and Scudder IPR before starting WG LC

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  [TBD after WG LC ]

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis


  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
  [TBD] RTG-DIR review.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review): TBD 
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): TBD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
Shepherd review references:
#1 - Pre-WG LC shepherd report
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg


1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Required Changes:
2.1) above nits needs to be resolved
2.2) RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction as well as current references (top of front page, Abstract)
2.3) IANA Considerations
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

3. check of implementation reports
  Unclear how OpenBSD and BIRD fill in the imoplementation document.
  Authors must change

----

If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
[leave question until IESG send]

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA should be done.

(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?

No


(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5tqVhN_aupX8iG0UVpd4P3pjE0E

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

[tbd]

(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.)

[TBD]

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.
[TBD:  RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction]

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?  [TBD]

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.


(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).

[TBD] fill in after check

(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.

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)
date: 6/7/2017

Status: Awaiting version-05 before send to RTG-DIR QA review, and OPS-DIR QA Review.
IPR Status: Awaiting John Scudder IPR
WG LC Status: Awaiting version -05 and Scudder IPR before starting WG LC

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  [TBD after WG LC ]

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis


  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
  [TBD] RTG-DIR review.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review): TBD 
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): TBD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
Shepherd review references:
#1 - Pre-WG LC shepherd report
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg


1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Required Changes:
2.1) above nits needs to be resolved
2.2) RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction as well as current references (top of front page, Abstract)
2.3) IANA Considerations
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

3. check of implementation reports
  Unclear how OpenBSD and BIRD fill in the imoplementation document.
  Authors must change

----

If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
[leave question until IESG send]

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA should be done.

(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?

No


(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
[TBD]

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

[tbd]

(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.)

[TBD]

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.
[TBD:  RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction]

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?  [TBD]

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.


(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).

[TBD] fill in after check

(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.

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)
date: 6/7/2017

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  [TBD after WG LC ]

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis


  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
  [TBD] RTG-DIR review.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review): TBD 
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): TBD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
Shepherd review references:
#1 - Pre-WG LC shepherd report
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rhoFMTXcHeCiUEPEVPhex_M48Eg


1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Required Changes:
2.1) above nits needs to be resolved
2.2) RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction as well as current references (top of front page, Abstract)
2.3) IANA Considerations
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

3. check of implementation reports
  Unclear how OpenBSD and BIRD fill in the imoplementation document.
  Authors must change

----

If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
[leave question until IESG send]

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA should be done.

(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?

No


(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
[TBD]

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

[tbd]

(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.)

[TBD]

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.
[TBD:  RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction]

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?  [TBD]

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.


(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).

[TBD] fill in after check

(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.

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)
date: 6/7/2017

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC? replaces standard RFC8203
and obsoletes RFC8203.  Updates RFC 4486.
 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
yes - it indicates standard, obsoletes RFC8203, and updates RFC4486.

(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 enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
  "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
  operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
  session was shutdown or reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and
  obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
  Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
  character sets.

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?

  [TBD after WG LC ]

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
  3 implementation of the RFC.  Implementation report at:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis


  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
  No additional implementation reports, but wide-spread
  operator demands so it is likely more implementations will appear.

  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)?
    No MIB or Yand Doctor or other specific expert review.
  [TBD] RTG-DIR review.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro rRetana
  RTG-DIR (QA Review): TBD 
  OPS-DIR (QA REview): TBD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

2. Review of document
Required Changes:
2.1) above nits needs to be resolved
2.2) RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction as well as current references (top of front page, Abstract)
2.3) IANA Considerations
IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations

Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/
New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/

Why: registry name at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8
is the contained in new test

3. check of implementation reports
  Unclear how OpenBSD and BIRD fill in the imoplementation document.
  Authors must change

----

If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
[leave question until IESG send]

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

RTG-DIR QA and OPS-DIR QA should be done.

(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?

No


(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.

Job Snijders
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6jkJ77pl9TCuCbzgJC9OHq2hbF8

Jakob Heitz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J1nHk3caTh29jyHVwV9nk0dMAR4

Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pP_XKI00zPnDwrtC9m-tNTv-zc

John Scudder
[TBD]

Notice about requiring John Scudder
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/guP5ElRltCFxkpueA0XFbPays_s

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

None

(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? 

[tbd]

(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.)

[TBD]

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

1.  Nits:
  found: Need for different boiler plate or resolution on generation
 
  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

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

No additional document reviews beyond
OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR.

(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?

obsoletes RFC 8203 (as replacement)
updates RFC4486 (as addition)

RFCS are listed on title page, the abstract, and introduction.
[TBD:  RFC8203 must be mentioned in the introduction]

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?  [TBD]

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.


(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).

[TBD] fill in after check

(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.

(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 checks needed.

As required by RFC 4858,  template (version: 2/24/2012)


(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?

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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

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?

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?

Personnel

  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.

(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
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 https://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?

(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.


(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).

(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.