Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

PROTO Questionaire and Write-up for: draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-01

Shepherding WG-Chair: Chris Hopps (

    (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?

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 introduces new sub-TLVs to support advertisement of
prefix attribute flags and the source router ID of the router which
originated a prefix advertisement.

    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?

There was no controversy in the WG over this draft.

    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 good interest in the industry to implementing this standard.


    Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: Christian Hopps.
AD: Alia Atlas.

    (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

I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.

    (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

No special review is needed.

    (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 specific 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?


    (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?

Strong consensus in the WG.

    (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

Reference needs increment/updating.

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


    (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.


    (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).

IANA section has been reviewed and is sufficient. Entries to existing
registries, as well as a new registry for prefix attribute flags
are clearly articulated.

    (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.

A new registry for the definition of prefix attribute flags is being
created. Existing IS-IS expert review is considered sufficient.

    (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.