Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis

(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?

The Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'.
This is an approprtate status as the mechanism defined in this documnet should
be interoperable.
The type of RFC is properly 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 describes an additional mechanism to IS-IS Graceful restart
functionality (RFC 5306)  so that planned restart by operator can happen with
the support of the neighboring nodes.

Working Group Summary
There is no much working group discussion on the enhancement presented in the
bis document. But, the draft has been presented in the LSR WG meeting(s). The
draft adoption and progress has received good support from the WG.

No major concerns have been raised.  The draft is ready for publication

Few review comments discussed in the list for this write have been fully
addressed by authors.

Document Quality
The draft has yet to go through routing directorate review.
Proposed enhancements  have been proto typed/implemented by 1
vendor-os/implementation.

Personnel
Uma Chunduri is the Document Shepherd.
Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd.
Comments and review feedback has been discussed in the LSR mailing list  and
duly addressed.

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

 N/A.

(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.

N/A

(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.

   N/A

(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.

   Yes.  Every author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes.  The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG list about IPR
in the LC process.  There haven't been any concerns raised on the list.

(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?

The draft adoption and progress had received reasonable support from the WG.

(10) 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.

(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. There are
still some editorial comments that need to be addressed. From idnits:

Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warning about ISO10859 has to be ignored (tool issue).

 (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
 as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

For Yang updates one of the co-chair's response:
"I have been working with an IS-IS developer who has worked on our native YANG
models and we are considering a separate draft which augments the operational
state for IS-IS adjacencies to include more information".

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

 Yes

(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?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(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.

This document obsoletes RFC 5306 - "Restart Signaling for IS-IS"

(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).

N/A

(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. N/A

(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. N/A
Back