Shepherd writeup
rfc7215-12

(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?

The draft is intended to be an informational RFC as indicated in the
title page header. In fact, the draft describes how to deploy network
elements (active/passive device(s) connected to other active/passive
device(s) for transporting packet switched data) introduced by the
Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). Each subsection of the
draft considers an element type and discusses the impact of deployment
scenarios on the protocol specification.


(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:

LISP is a protocol which can be used for different purposes. This draft describes
how to deploy its associated network elements, in order to identify possible
deployment scenarios and the additional requirements they may impose on the
protocol specification and other protocols. This document is intended as a guide for
the operational community for LISP deployments in their networks and is expected
to evolve as LISP deployment progresses, and the described scenarios are better
understood or new scenarios are discovered. 


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 nor any contentious issues during the WG process. The
consensus was not rough and the draft came out as the result of a collective effort.


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 are multiple implementations of the protocol that am aware of. To my
knowledge, at least one vendor has implemented the specification. The draft has
received a fair amount of reviews and discussions without triggering any major
change(s) in the document nor substantive issue(s). 


Personnel:

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

- Document Shepherd: Wassim Haddad (Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com)

- Responsible Area Director: Brian Haberman (INTERNET 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 IESG.

The document shepherd has reviewed the draft for completeness and believes that it
is ready in its current form for publication as informational standard. There is one nit in
Section 1, Network element definition: "connected" is repeated twice


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd does not have any concern about the depth or breadths of
the reviews. 


(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 place.

The security implications are addressed in a separated document (work in progress).
Other portions do not need review from particular or broader perspective.


(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.

The document shepherd does not have any specific concerns or issues with the
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 document shepherd has sent an email on Saturday 04/27 and received within 48
hours confirmations from two co-authors that they are not aware of any IPR
disclosures.


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

No IPR disclosure which references this document has been filed.


(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 document shepherd believes that there was a clear consensus for publishing the
draft as informational RFC. LISP WG chairs asked for consensus during the LISP WG
session then again on the ML. 


(10) 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.)

The document shepherd is not aware of any threats nor animosity nor extreme
discontent with regards to publishing the draft as informational RFC. 


(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 thorough.

Line 487 has weird spacing: '…infrastructure   x   ...'


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

The document does not require reviews related to MIB and does not make any request
to IANA.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative?

Yes, all references have been identified in both categories. In addition to citing internet
drafts and RFCs, Informative references section mention an academic paper.


(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?

There is no ambiguity related to Normative references. The corresponding section
cites 3 RFCs.


(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.

There are no downward normative references. 


(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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.


(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).

The document makes no request to IANA.


(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.

The document does not have IANA registries that require expert review for future
allocations.


(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.

Document shepherd has reviewed all sections. No formal language


-- End shepherd writeup
Back