Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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 RFC is Standards Track and it would obsolete an existing RFC 7810 
    which is Standards Track once published.

(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 extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering
    Extensions (RFC5305) such that network performance information can be
    distributed and collected in a scalable fashion.  The information
    distributed using ISIS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make
    path selection decisions based on network performance.

    Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network
    performance information is distributed.  The mechanisms for measuring
    network performance or acting on that information, once distributed,
    are outside the scope of this document.

Working Group Summary

    This bis draft update to RFC7810 was created out of an errata
    submitted that pointed out errors in the definition of certain
    bandwidth related sub-TLVs. There was a quick and unanimous 
    decision to address this error by publishing this bis update.

    There have been much discusson as to how these metrics would be 
    collected and how they will be used when reviewing RFC7810. A
    similar discussion also took place during the review of this 
    bis draft that replaces RFC7810. On both occassions, these 
    topics were deemed to be out of scope. 

    During RFC7810 review, there was also concern for potential 
    overhead of collecting and flooding these metrics. In response,
    the RFC7810 contains guidance as to how often the measurements
    should be collected and flooded. Additionally, the RFC7810 
    recommends configuration to control measurement usage and the
    thresholds for advertisement. All of these aspects are
    unchanged in the bis draft update.

Document Quality

    The RFC7810 published over two years ago has at least two known
    implementations. There is no change to the technical solution
    in this update. The updated bis draft has identical content
    to RFC7810 except for the changes for fixing of the error
    in encoding and highlighting the changes in the appendix.


    Ketan Talaulikar 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 document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list.

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


(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.


(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.


(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.

    Pending Response at WG adoption:
    Authors: S Giacolone, D Ward 
    Contributors: A Atlas, C Filsfils

    There was no IPR poll done during/after WGLC. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

    Two IPRs were disclosed against RFC 7810 as seen below

    These are also inherited by this bis update to that document.
    However, they are not currently reflecting on this document
    and this needs to be fixed/updated.

    This IPR has been shared during adoption call and discussion
    and there were no objections.

(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 is consensus within the WG to progress this document.

(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.) 


(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

    No nits pending

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

    Not applicable

(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?

    None that are not ready or unclear

(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. 


(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.

    Yes. This document will obsolete RFC 7810. This is clarified in
    the title page and also changes described in the Appendix section.

(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).

    The IANA allocations made via RFC 7810 are unchanged and this
    document does not bring in any new considerations.

(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.


(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.

    Not Applicable