Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

draft-ietf-intarea-probe-06.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd

(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?

  This document is targeting publication as Proposed Standard.
        It is the proper type of RFC since it adds two new types of
  ICMP messages, updating RFC 4884 (which is Proposed standard itself).
        The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

        This document describes PROBE, a new network diagnostic tool.
  PROBE is similar to the PING tool, since it can be used to test the status
  of a probed interface.
  However, differently from PING, it does not require bidirectional
  connectivity between the probing and probed interfaces. Bidirectional
  connectivity is required only between the probing interface and a proxy
  interface.  The latter can reside on the same node as the probed interface or
  it can reside on a node to which the probed interface is directly connected.
  This make PROBE useful in situations where PING would not work, e.g.:
   o  The probed interface is unnumbered
   o  The probing and probed interfaces are not directly connected to
      one another.  The probed interface has an IPv6 link-local address,
      but does not have a more globally scoped address
   o  The probing interface runs IPv4 only while the probed interface
      runs IPv6 only
   o  The probing interface runs IPv6 only while the probed interface
      runs IPv4 only
   o  For lack of a route, the probing node cannot reach the probed

Working Group Summary:

        The tool proposed in the document document simply overcomes some of the
        PING shortcomings, and as such has raised interest. During the various
        presentations in the IntArea meetings no technical objections have ever
        been raised. Several people have commented on the document and authors
        addressed these comments.

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?

        There is at least one implementation (by Juniper Networks) of the
        proposed mechanism.


Who is the Document Shepherd?

          Luigi Iannone <>

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

          Suresh Krishnan <>

(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.

  I reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable.
        On the document that past the WG Last Call I had some editorial
        changes concerning the IANA considerations section.
  Version -06 of the document addressed the issue.

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

          As the document shepherd I have no concerns.

(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 broader review, going beyond the normal IETF process, is required
  for this document.

(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.

          I have no specific concerns or issues to point out.

(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?

    All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure (see next point).

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

          There is an existing IPR disclosure:
    Authors are unaware of any additional IPR to be disclosed.

(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?

    Consensus has been reached smoothly for this document.

(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.)

          Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.

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


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

     (Using the creation date from RFC4884, updated by this document, for
     RFC5378 checks: 2005-09-19)

  -- 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 for more information.)

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

     No issues found here.

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.

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

          No formal review is required.

(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?

        There are no normative references in unclear state.

(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.

          There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

        No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication
        of this document.
  Note, however, that this document UPDATES RFC4884 since it defines two new
  ICMP message types and an ICMP extension object. This is stated in the
  header, the abstract and the body of the document.

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

        I requested some editorial changes from -05 version for the document so
        to better clarify the IANA section.
  This document instruct IANA to allocate 2 new ICMPv4 type code-points and 2
  new ICMPv6 code-points for the two newly defined messages. Additionally a new
  Class-Num code-point is requested for the newly defined Interface
  Identification Object. The above results as well in the addition of  specific
  entries to the following existing registries: o "ICMP Type Number" registry o
  "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" registry o
  "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class Sub-types" registry The content of
  each requested entry is defined in the IANA Considerations section. No
  creation of new registries is demanded.

(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 expert review is required.

(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.

          The document does not contain anything written in a formal
          language, hence, no validation and/or check has been