# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## 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?
A broad agreement in the WG.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy.
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.
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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
There is one known shipped implementation. It has not been reported per RFC7942
or elsewhere officially.
## 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.
No.
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.
No extra formal review 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][4] 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][5]?
No YANG.
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.
N/A.
## 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.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been
identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in
subsequent reviews?
N/A.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes
correctly reflect this intent?
Experimental. The WG and authors agreed that this document should begin on the
experimental track.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in
[BCP 79][7]? 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.
Yes.
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.
Yes.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
[idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines"
on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool
generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
References need to be updated during LC process.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
[IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
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?
The base IS-IS specification is an ISO standard.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? 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][11]).
The shepherd has reviewed
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.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]:
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]:
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/