Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-manet-credit-window

(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?

Proposed Standard is appropriate.  There are many years of experience with
similar technologies within industry.  The IETF does have experience with
similar drafts specifically RFC5578.

(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 draft describes an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide a
credit-windowing scheme analogous to that in RFC5578 for destination-specific
flow control.  Credits for data exchange are expressed as two unidirectional
windows (Modem Receive Window (MRW) and Router Receive Window (RRW) between the
router and modem. A significant difference, due to the differences of how PPPoE
(RFC5578) and DLEP operate, is that credits are managed on a
destination-specific basis.

Working Group Summary:

This credit extension was originally specified as an optional feature in the
base DLEP specification. After an extensive RGtDir review the base DLEP
specification was sent back to the WG.  The WG decided that it would clean up
the specification if credit windowing was was documented in it's own extension
draft; The goal being two fold, stressing that the feature was optional and
outlining how future extension drafts to DLEP may be written.

There is strong support within the working group on moving this document
forward. Only minor comments regarding prefered alternative credit based
winding systems, specifically pause and pfc which this document doesn't
preclude others from developing as it's an extension.

Document Quality:

With familiarity of DLEP the specification is easy to read and straightforward.
 There is broad support within industry and the Shepard fully expects many of
the existing DLEP implementations to support this extension once standardized
as there is demand on the customer side.  The document quality was addressed
extensively in the RtgDir review and subsequent WG discussions.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd is Justin Dean
Area Director Alvaro Retana
Directorate Reviewer: Lou Burger

(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 Shepherd has read the draft document as well as previous non-split
versions.  Recent updates (after DLEP document was sent back to the WG and
split into two) resolves outstanding issues raised in the RgtDir review.

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

No

(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

(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.

None.

(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.

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

No.

(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 WG as a whole understands and strongly agrees with it moving forward.

(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.)

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.

ID nits was run and there no errors, 2 warnings and one comment.  The warning
of note is. == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate,
even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

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

A RtrDir review has been performed.

(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 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.

No.

(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 section clearly specifies which allocations are being requested from
those created in the base DLEP draft: 3 "Data Item Type Values" 1 "Extension
Type Values" 2 "Status Code Values"

(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.

None

(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.

None.
Back