Shepherd writeup
rfc8629-07

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) The document is being presented as a Proposed Standard. Current marking on the document reads "Standards Track".

(2) 

Technical Summary

 This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol that enables
 the reporting and control of Multi-Hop Forwarding by DLEP capable
 modems.

Working Group Summary

  The Working Group process proceeded without any issues. The authors took most of the points raised on the mailing list and incorporated them into the document. The document reached last call without controversy.

Document Quality

  The document is well written. To the shepherd's knowledge, there are no implementations of the specification, however, vendors plan to implement. Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is Stan Ratliff. The responsible Area Director is Alvaro Retana.

(3) The document shepherd has reviewed the document, and has found no issues with proceeding to publication.

(4) The document has been reviewed at a sufficient technical depth, and is ready for publication.

(5) No further reviews are needed.

(6) The shepherd has no concerns or issues for the responsible AD. The WG consensus behind this document is solid. 

(7) Yes, each author has confirmed that no IPR exists. 

(8) No IPR has been filed against this document. 

(9) The WG as a whole understands the document, and agrees that it should be published.    

(10) No appeals have been threatened. 

(11) No nits were found.

(12) The document does not reference a MIB, or media types. No additional reviews are required. 

(13) All references are defined as either normative or informative.

(14) All normative references are already published RFCs.

(15) There are no downward references. 

(16) This document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

(17) All IANA information has been properly addressed in the document, and this information is completely consistent with the rest of the document. 

(18) The 'Extension Type Value' registry would require expert review. Experts were identified when the registry was created.

(19) No XML, BNF, or MIB text appears in the document. 

Back