As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
As indicated in the header, this document is intended for informational status.
It is an analysis of protocols, according to the KARP guidelines, and as such
belongs as an informational document.
(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:
This document analyzes BGP, LDP, PCEP and MSDP according to
guidelines set forth in section 4.2 of Keying and Authentication for
Routing Protocols Design Guidelines [RFC6518].
Working Group Summary
The working group was happy with this document. Joe Touch expressed
concerns about the descriptions of TCP-MD5 and TCP-AO. All the specific
concerns he raised have been addressed, but his comments suggest that he may
have additional unspecified concerns.
This document has been reviewed by the Working Group and by the chairs. It
does a good job laying out both the common issues across the protocols it
analyses, and the protocol specific issues. The level of detail is
appropriate to the working group goals as laid out in the charter and the
Joel Halpern is the document shepherd. Stewart Bryant is the responsible
Area Director. Joel and Brian Weis are the responsible Working Group Chairs.
(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 document Shepherd has read this document both before the WG last call, and
after the resolution of comments. It is in good shape, and the shepherd
believes it is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
While not extensively reviewed, there were sufficiently many distinct
individuals who reviewed the document, issues were raised and resolved.
(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
The document is clearly a security related document. While it has had review
from indivduals who are quite knowledgable about security, I anticipate and
welcome the Security Directorate review. The document does not contain formal
language material needing special treatment. And operational security issues of
routing protocols are dealt with by the working group in a separate document,
so normal operations and management review should suffice for this.
(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
There are no special concerns with this document.
(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.
The shepherd has confirmed with each document author that all known IPR has
been disclosed. The working group was also asked if anyone knew of undisclosed
IPR, and no such indications were brought forward.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.
(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?
The working group has a tendency towards quiet. The shepherd, wearing his
co-chair hat, believes that the support is reasonably broad, even though not
vocal. The working group does understand the document, and there are no
(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.)
There have been no threats of appeal nor any other indications of significant
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
ID nits complains about references, which I consider an issue to be left for
final editing. Otherwise, it does not report any problems.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no relevant formal review criteria. The shepherd did keep in mind
the relevant guidelines in RFC 6518 in reviewing this document, and it meets
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The references section is split into Normative and Informative references, and
the individual references are places appropriately.
(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?
The only normative reference which is not an RFC is
draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs, which is in the process of being revised for the
(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.
As this is an informative document, there are inherently no downward normative
(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.
Publication of this document will not affect the status of any existing RFCs.
This is not a revision of, nor a supplement to, any existing RFC. Rather, it
is a new work product being created by this working group.
(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).
This document does not assign any code points, and therefore has no IANA
actions, considerations, or impact. It has no IANA considerations section,
rather than having a section stating this explicitly which would need to be
removed during final editing.
(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.
None (see 17).
(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, as there is no formal language material to be verified by automated tools.