Shepherd writeup

draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt Document 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 document is targeting publication as an Experimental RFC.
	    It is the proper type of RFC since it introduces a
      canonical address encoding for the Locator/ID Separation
      Protocol (LISP), whose RFCs have Experimental status.
	    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 describes a canonical address format encoding
      used in the ocator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), more precisely
      in the lookup keys of the LISP mapping system and related control
      messages. The intent is to define a general syntax that includes
      Address Family Identifier (AFI), length, and value fields.
      Such general syntax aims at enabling an easy evolution of the
      protocol to support future applications.

Working Group Summary:

	     The document has been around for a while, and has been discussed
       several time. From the beginning, there was strong support, because
       the WG felt that the flexibility introduced by a canonical address
       encoding was an important feature, which would enable using LISP
       to be used for use-cases and applications which are not in the
       original scope of the protocol.
       Such support never faded. Discussion in the WG group mostly
       focused on the initial type allocation and their definition.
       The WG converged on splitting the initial type allocation and
       their usage in two different sections. Section 4 of the document
       defines types for which the use-cases are well defined and
       implementation exists or are ongoing. Section 5 contains
       types that have a more experimental nature, for which they usage
       is either not yet clearly identified or not completely defined.
	     The version of the document that was approved during WG Last
       Call is -13. As a shepherd I required a few editorial changes
	     to the document, all of them editorial, intended to solve as well
       a few idnits errors that were showing up.

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?

	     The LCAF is currently supported by various LISP implementations.
       May be not all of the types are supported but the basic encoding
       syntax and types are there.


Who is the Document Shepherd?

       	  Luigi Iannone <>

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

       	Deborah Brungard <>.

(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.

       	I reviewed carefully the document. The text is sufficiently
        clear and understandable.
	      On the document that past the WG Last Call I had some editorial
        I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and
        publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
	      I checked the ID nits (output provided  on point 11)
	      and everything is clear.

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

	      As the document shepherd I have 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.

        I do think think that a additional specific review is needed.

(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.

	      I have 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.

(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.

(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 strong consensus behind this document,
	     showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree 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.

idnits 2.14.01  /var/www/.idnits

   Attempted to download draft-ietf-lisp- state...
   Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.
   Attempted to download rfc8350 state...
   Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.
   Attempted to download rfc8472 state...
   Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.

  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:

     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental

     No issues found here.

     No nits found.

(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?


(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 are no normative references in unclear state.

(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

	This document instruct IANA to create a new registry for the
	LCAF type value indicating what kind of encoding follows the initial
  6 bytes of the canonical encoding. The initial content
	of the newly created registry is well identified and allocations
	procedure is a expert review with a required specification.
  I assume that the IESG can select an expert. For what is worth
  I can volunteer for the role.
	The registry is named “LISP LCAF Type”, which
	concisely express its content.

(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.

	     No expert review is required.

(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 document does not contain anything written in a formal
	    language, hence, no validation and/or check has been