# Document Shepherd Writeup
*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
This is small bis update we took through the WG quickly. It had clear
consensus, with about 1/3-1/2 of the active WG chiming in. Both RFC8321bis and
RFC8889bis are being taken through the process together.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was no controversy in these updates within the WG.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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 appeals threatened.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942] recommends) or elsewhere
Our adoption call of the -bis document raised the question of implementations,
and several implementations were discussed on the mailing list.
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
This -bis effort was spurred on by draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark, which
normatively references the work. Authors are participants of both WGs, and that
WG is aware of this work.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review needed.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342]?
No YANG model.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
### Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, I think these documents are ready to progress.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
I do not believe this document requires further area reviews.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. The point of this bis effort is to move from Experimental
to Proposed Standard.
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78] and [BCP 79] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
Yes, IPR is filed for both RFC8321bis and RFC8889bis, which is just a carry-over
of the existing IPR on the original RFC8321 and RFC8889 documents.
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
Both documents have 5 authors each, and all authors were involved with the
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
Nits for RFC8889bis:
** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC8889]), which it
shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
documents in question.
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5474
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-route has been published as RFC 9198
These items should be addressed by making the reference to RFC8889 in the
abstract textual as suggesting, making the reference to RFC5474 informative,
and referring to RFC9198.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
For RFC8889bis: the reference to RFC5474 should become informative.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
All references are available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967],
[BCP 97])? If so, list them.
For RFC8889bis: Currently RFC5474 is such, but I believe that should change.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Yes, RFC8889bis obsoletes RFC8889, as described in the abstract.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126]).
This document does not have IANA actions.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
This document does not have IANA actions.