Shepherd writeup
rfc7964-04

Version of Shepherd write-up: 2/24/2016  (RFC4858)
Type: Standards Track 
Next step: AD and IESG review  
Last update: 4/11/2016 


 (1) What type of RFC: Standard  

Why: Because it specifies the solution to a day-one problem with BGP and hierarchical RRs/Confederations.

(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 presents two sets of paths for an address prefix
   that can be advertised by a BGP route reflector or confederation ASBR
   to eliminate the MED-induced route oscillations in a network.  The
   first set involves all the available paths, and would achieve the
   same routing consistency as the full IBGP mesh.  The second set,
   which is a subset of the first one, involves the neighbor-AS based
   Group Best Paths, and would be sufficient to eliminate the MED-
   induced route oscillations (subject to certain commonly adopted
   topological constrains).

Working Group Summary

Strong consensus.  Good discussion on the list. 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg14201.html


Document Quality

Implemented in Juniper, Cisco 

Personnel
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares 
AD: Alia Atlas (Alvaro Retana is the author) 
RTG-DIR review: Tony Przygienda
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg14431.html

 
(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.

Reviewed text, ask questions on list on expansion to Data Center. 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg14201.html

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

No, this was discussed for over 5 years, and deployed. 
We are just slow in getting it standardized. 

(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, normal reviews are fine. 

(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.

No concerns.  Document has received review, and deployment.
It fixes an operational problem and has been tested for 3-4 years.  

(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.

Alvaro Retana
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg14249.html

Enke Chen:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg15463.html

Daniel Walton 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg14262.html

John Scudder 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg15462.html

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
 no IPR statements 

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?   

Strong agreement.  5 years of discussion, and operational deployment. 

(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.

Nit is an error in the NIT detection.   NIT program needs to be fixed. 
All Shepherd's comments addressed. 

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

No additional formal review. 

(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?

draft-idr-add-paths - sent to IESG prior to this document, and 
draft-idr-add-paths - is expected to go as a bundle with this draft. 

(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. 

draft-idr-add-paths - going as a bundle for approval with this draft. 

(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.

Fixes the route-oscillation-stop problem by using add-paths. 
However, add-paths solution is not required to RFC4271. 


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

(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.

Back