Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd

(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 "Informational" status. It is the proper type of
   RFC since the document is about the usage of LISP in the automotive context.
   It does not introduce any modification to the LISP protocol. The RFC type is
   clearly indicated 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 specifies the use of H3 and LISP for Geolocation
   Services. H3 is a geospatial indexing system using hexagonal grid that can
   be subdivided into finer and finer hexagonal grids, combining the benefits
   of a hexagonal grid with hierarchy. These standards are combined to create
   an in-network state reflecting condition of each hexagonal tile in every
   road. The mobility H3-LISP network maps and encapsulates traffic between
   client endpoint identifiers (EID) and addressable geospatial contexts.

Working Group Summary:

   This work was actually presented back in 2018 as an example of LISP use
   case, being the application actively developed. The WG got readily
   interested and basically push to document such use case. An individual 
   draft has been submitted in February 2019 and adopted by end of 2019, the
   adoption call has been issued confirmed on the mailing list after IETF 106.
   The authors asked WG Last Call during IETF 110 and consensus has been
   reached on the mailing list (LISP WG did not meet at IETF 106). The document
   that was approved during WG Last Call is -07. The document was parked (like
   other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications.
   During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to
   improve the clarity of the document and rewrite the IANA considerations
   section according to RFC 8126.

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, YANG 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?

   Version -04 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Not
   Ready". Details are available on the datatracker:
   . Yet, the authors addressed all the comments


Who is the Document Shepherd?

   Luigi Iannone <>

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

   Alvaro Retana <>

(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. After my review the text is much more
   clear       understandable. I have checked the mailing list publication WG
   consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits which is
   clean and the output for the -19 version of the document is provided on
   point 11

(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.

  No broader review is required for this document (other than the usual area

(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, just a remark. In the packets' format that this
  protocol defines and uses, there are three bits that state whether or not the
  data content is compressed and how (see Figure 6 of the document). I
  suggested the main author to be more open and add a request to IANA to create
  a sub registry for the compression algorithm. This was deemed not necessary.

(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. No author is aware of any
  IPR related to content of this document.

(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 disclosures have been filed concerning this specific 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?

  There has been clear 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 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021)


  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: Informational

     No issues found here.

     No nits found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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?

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right
  type of reference.

(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 document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], which is in the RFC Editor

(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

  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 8126).

  The document has one IANA request, namely to create a registry named NEXAGON
  Parameters, and populate with the State Enumeration Fields sub-registries
  with value defined in the document.

(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 for future allocations is required, a Fist Come First Served
  policy is suggested.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

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

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
( for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in

  The document does not contain any YANG module.