Shepherd writeup

Proto writeup for draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis

(1) This is targeted to be an Informational RFC. It's role is providing guidance to protocol authors. The type is listed on the title page header.

(2) Sample IESG approval announcement:

Technical Summary

This document analyzes the security mechanisms for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, according to the guidelines set forth in RFC 6518. In analyzes the current state of each protocol, describes gaps, and  discusses work that needs to be done to close those gaps.

Working Group Summary

This document is the first of a series of documents analyzing routing protocol security, which is the initial mission of the working group. There was little controversy of note. Members and chairs of the OSPF WG were active in its development and review.

Document Quality

The document meets the criteria for the phase 1 analysis as defined in RFC 6518. Recommendations of methods of closing security gaps have already been included in I-Ds accepted as OSPF WG documents.


Brian Weis <> is the document shepherd.
Stewart Bryant <> is the responsible AD. 

(3) The document shepherd has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for publication.  

(4) The document shepherd believes the document achieved sufficient review during its development and Working Group last call process.

(5) Although this document is generated in the Routing Area, the entire document relates to security. A substantial amount of the working group  comprises individuals who participate in the Security Area and the document shepherd believes an adequate security review was obtained.

(6) The document shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the document.

(7) Each author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have been filed.

(8) No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) WG consensus is solidly behind this document.

(10) There are no appeals expected, or claims of discontent expected.

(11) Three very minor id-nits issues remain with this document, and will be fixed in the next version.

(12) There are no required formal reviews.

(13) All references within this document have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) All normative references are stable  published RFCs.

(15) There are no downward normative references.

(16) Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(17) There are no IANA considerations in this document.

(18) There are no new IANA registries added with this document.

(19) None of the document is written in a formal language.