Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07

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 '<CODE BEGINS>' and
     '<CODE ENDS>' 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. 
Back