(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 as the document outlines an optional extension to a proposed standard protocol (DLEP) and working code exists.
(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:
There exists a class of modems which would benefit from Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] support but do not present a single Layer 2 network domain as required by DLEP. This document introduces an optional extension to the core DLEP specification, allowing DLEP to be used between routers and modems that operate in this way.
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.
Document Shepherd? 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.
I’ve done a through review of the document and identified various nits and wordage issues. The most substantial issue regarded some confusion in intent due to poor wording. I’ve verified with the authors that rewording will fix the issue and no protocol functionality will need be changed. The only other issue of note was identifying all protocol specific key words and using the same text to refer to those objects (specifically “Link Identifier”). These changes and issues are all minor enough to be rolled into any future rev required by the IESG or IETF last call.
(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.
The Document Shepherd doesn’t have any issues or concerns with this document (excluding those mentioned)
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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 solid WG consensus behind 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
There was one error:
The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC8175]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question.
And 3 warnings regarding references, 2 unused (due to being in the abstract) and 1 obsoleted.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There is no formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes. They just need to be moved out of the abstract.
(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?
(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.
It won’t change the status but when optionally used it will update RFC8175 which is listed as a normative reference.
(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 Shepherd suggested an edit to improve clarity regarding which registries requested assignments were being made from. The current text (non edited/updated) is sufficient for absolute correctness only lacks some in clarity. The suggested edits were sent to the authors but the Shepherd wouldn’t be bothered if they keep the current text.
(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.
There are no new IANA registries only assignment requests.
(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.