Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

(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?

      This draft is targeting publication as an Informational RFC.

      It is the proper type of RFC since it proposes guidelines to
      administratively manage the allocation of EID prefixes in the LISP EID

      The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page header.

(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:

      This document proposes a framework for the management of the LISP EID
      Block.  The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution of
      the address space, granting temporary usage of sub-prefixes of such space
      to requesting organisations.  This document is a companion of the LISP
      EID Block draft (draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10).

Working Group Summary:

      No concerns were expressed by the WG on the necessity of disposing of a
      management guidelines document.  However, this final document is the
      result of the numerous discussions that occurred within the WG.  The WG
      reached a consensus on this document.

Document Quality:

      The document is well written and of a high standard.  No special review
      was performed nor is needed.  The massive implication of the group on the
      companion document LISP EID Block (draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10)
      indicates the absolute need of publishing this management document (i.e.,
      draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04) jointly with the LISP EID Block
      document.  People having contributed significantly to the work are well
      acknowledged in the document.


Who is the Document Shepherd? 

      Damien Saucez <> 

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

      Brian Haberman <> 

(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 shepherd has carefully reviewed the corrected the current version

      The text is clear and understandable.

      The shepherd has checked the ID nits and there is two warnings and no
      errors.  Both warning are related to the publication date of the ID
      (copyright in 2014 and document 12 days old).

      The reviewer has checked the mailing list and meeting minutes and
      publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.

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

      The numerous discussions on the mailing list and at the WG meetings
      indicate deep reviews from the the WG members.

      The shepherd has no concerns.

(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.

      No broader review is required for this document. 

(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 shepherd believes that it is not necessary to reference all LISP RFCs
      in Sec 2 and 3.  Particularly as they are already referenced in the
      companion draft (draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10).  If ever it is considered
      to be important, then it would be good to add RFC 7052 and RFC 7215 then.

      The shepherd suggests to reference draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10 in
      Section 3 - Definition of terms.

      The last sentence of point 2 in Section 4 has a typo: "renewal should
      __no different__ to the conditions of registrations.

      The shepherd finds that the reading of Section 6, point 3.c would be more
      readable by moving the 3 bullet (According to the 3+3 year [...]) at the
      first position. 

      The shepherd believes only the terms used in the document should be
      listed in Appendix A. 

      Depending on the publication date, dates mentioned in the document might
      have to be updated.

      These changes can be done during the IESG review.

(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?

      All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure.

      According to authors, the funding projects acknowledged in the document
      do not claim intellectual property of the work.

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

      The shepherd has requested for IPR disclosure for this draft on the LISP
      WG mailing list on 12 January 2015 (threat available on  At the
      date of today (16 January 2015) nobody claimed intellectual property and
      all authors have acknowledge the absence of IPR from their side.

(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?

      There has been clear consensus behind this document, showing that the WG
      as a whole understands and agrees 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.)

      Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal. 

(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.

      The shepherd has checked the ID nits and there is two warnings and no
      errors.  Both warning are related to the publication date of the ID
      (copyright in 2014 and document 12 days old). 


idnits 2.13.01


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  -- The document date (December 31, 2014) is 12 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Informational

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.

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

      No formal review is required. 

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

     All references are correctly 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?

     Normative reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] causes a dependency with the
     current document.  The status of this document is "Submitted to IESG for

(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.

     No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this

(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 instructs the IANA to maintain a registration service for
    LISP EID Block assignments so to ensure a global uniform management of the
    LISP EID Block for the duration of the LISP EID Block experiment.  The
    shepherd considers the document appropriate and clearly identifying 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.

    This document does not requires an Expert Review for future allocations.
    However an IANA expert must review this document to ensure the
    compatibility of the IANA Consideration section with the IANA practices.

(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.

   The shepherd has checked automatic validation using idnits 2.13.01