Shepherd writeup
rfc7954-13

draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09  Document Shepherd Write-Up

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 directs the IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6
     prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). 

     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 is a direction to IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with
     the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be used for
     local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites
     deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) addressing space.

Working Group Summary:

     No concerns were expressed by the WG on the necessity of assigning an EID
     prefix for Internet LISP deployment.  However, long discussions have been
     focused on the prefix length to be given for the EID prefix.  After very
     long debates on the mailing list and WG meetings, the WG reached
     consensus on a /16 IPv6 prefix with a request to IANA to reserve adjacent
     space for future EID use/growth.

Document Quality:

     The document is well written and of a high standard.  No special review
     was performed nor is needed.  The massive feedback and implication of the
     group indicates the willingness to use the requested prefix once assigned
     by IANA.  People having contributed significantly to the work are well
     acknowledged in the document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? 

     Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr> 

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

     Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> 

(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 reviewed carefully the document in version -08 and requested
     authors some minor changes.  The authors have answered with a new version
     (-09) taking into account all comments.  The shepherd has carefully
     reviewed the corrected the current version -09.

     The text is clear and understandable.

     The shepherd has checked the ID nits and there is one warning and no
     errors.  The warning is an outdated reference to the
     draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt ID that was renewed just after the
     submission of the current document.

     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 massive discussions on the mailing list and the answer given by the
     authors indicates 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 has no specific concerns or issues to point out. 

(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 10 June 2014 (threat available on
     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg05274.html).  At the
     date of today (21 July 2014) nobody claimed intellectual property.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ 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 one warning and no
     errors.  The warning is an outdated reference to the
     draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt ID that was renewed just after the
     submission of the current document.

     Notation for side notes in Sec.  9 are ambiguous and could be interpreted
     as references.  The shepherd consider though that this notation is
     appropriate.

     details:

idnits 2.13.00

/tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09.txt:

 Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
 http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

 Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

 Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

 Miscellaneous warnings:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -- The document date (July 1, 2014) is 20 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


 Checking references for intended status: Informational
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 327

 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 328

 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 328

 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 330

 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 331

 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
    draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 6 comments (--).</pre>


(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-mgmnt] is outdated and causes
    a circular dependency with the current document.  No last call has been
    made yet for this normative reference but is planned and likely to get
    accepted.

(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
    document.

(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 assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use as the
  global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as outlined in
  [RFC5226].  The entire document is written to support the IANA consideration
  section.  The shepherd considers the document appropriate and clearly
  identifying IANA needs.




(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.

  Table 1 in Section 9 requires review from IANA registries.

              +----------------------+--------------------+
              | Attribute            | Value              |
              +----------------------+--------------------+
              | Address Block        | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] |
              | Name                 | EID Space for LISP |
              | RFC                  | [This Document]    |
              | Allocation Date      | 2015 [2]           |
              | Termination Date     | December 2018 [3]  |
              | Source               | True [4]           |
              | Destination          | True               |
              | Forwardable          | True               |
              | Global               | True               |
              | Reserved-by-protocol | True [5]           |
              +----------------------+--------------------+

   [1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as
     RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3]
  According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date
    can be postponed to December 2021. [4] Can be used as a multicast
  source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled
                                routers.  

(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 2.13.00
Back