As required by RFC 4858, and the current template for the shepherd write-up
document
Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence
of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The document has been around for a few years (call for WG adoption was in 2017)
and is mature. The document was supported by 14 votes (appropriate for the WG)
and there were no objections.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?
One particular concern to add clarification in the document for procedure at
each tunnel hop in section 5 when the S bit is set. It was openly debated on
the mailing list and resolved in the current version of the document.
3. 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.)
No discontent is recorded on the mailing list or in WG meeting on the latest
version.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers
indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported
somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
There are existing implementations though not recorded in the document.
Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore
benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
The document is relevant with in LISP domain and does not have reviews from
other WGs. External reviews have not been requested nor recorded.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The above-mentioned document reviews are not required.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of 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 RFC
8342?
There is no Yang module in the document
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of
the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
There are no formal languages used in the doc
Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed,
and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is ready to be handed off. It is clearly written, the author
addressed all pending comments from the shepherd review. This document
describes an important and useful feature for LISP protocol deployment.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
The document describes an extension to the LISP protocol and how it should be
processed and does not have such areas requiring subsequent reviews
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The authors requested the document to be in the Experimental stream and is
appropriate for the document for a new feature. Yes, all the Datatracker
attributes correctly reflect this intent.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79?
To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to
publicly-available messages when applicable.
An IPR disclosure call was sent on the wg list and there were no IPR
disclosure. All authors responded and they are not aware of IPR as well
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
The document has 3 authors and shown their willingness to be listed as such.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some
incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-lisp-te-20.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according
to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe
there should be IPv6 examples, too?
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (4 November 2024) is 31 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Experimental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
The idnits had no errors
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
No
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
No
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those
RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where
the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that
each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
The document does not request any IANA registry.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A