Shepherd writeup

    (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

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.

This document updates RFC6822 to allow for the use of multi-topology IS-IS
(RFC5120) extensions within multi-instance IS-IS instances. This was previously
not allowed.

    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?

Implementations exist and are deployed with the changes. Other implementations
are in the pipeline.


    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

The change to the RFC while technically incompatible is actually already
deployed by vendors and represents a loosening of restrictions only.

    (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


    (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.

    (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?

Confrimed no known IPR.

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


    (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 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.

A simple updat, no formal review 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?


    (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.

Yes, it's a bis update to an existing RFC.

    (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).

No changes here.

    (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 changes here.

    (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.

None needed.