(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 being requested. The document outlines an optional extension to
the Proposed Standard RFC 8175 Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP). Working
code with this proposed extension exists and this is the appropriate type of
RFC request. (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: The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175], it
provides the exchange of link related control information between DLEP peers.
The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which provides a single
latency value on a link. This document adds the ability to relay the minimum
and maximum latency range seen on a link, "Latency Range".
Working Group Summary:
There wasn’t anything of significant contention within the working group
regarding the document either in text or protocol operation.
There is an existing implementation of the protocol. There is at least one
vender who plans or has used the specification. I’ve (Justin Dean) have
reviewed the document in detail and didn’t find any substantive issues. The
document is short and clear.
Document Shephard: Justin Dean
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana
(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 shephard performed a through review of the document. Minor wording issues
regarding clarity were forwarded to the authors. No major issues were found.
(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. No conserns.
(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? Consensus is solid.
(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.
No issues were found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review criteria
(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
(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 provides an optional extenion to RFC 8175, as it's
optional no changes to RFC8175 need occur. This relationship is made clear in
(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). This document requests the assignment of 2 values by IANA to
registries defined by RFC8175. This is clearly conveyed in the document along
with the appropriate registry types: "Extension Type Values" and "Data Item
(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. No new registries are
(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.
IDNITS was run otherwise N/A.