Shepherd writeup
rfc8116-04

(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?


     The intended status is “Informational”. The title page header indicates Informational. 

(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 analyzes security threats of OLSRv2 (RFC 7181) and associated RFCs (RFC5148, RFC5444, RFC5497, RFC6130, RFC7182, RFC7183, RFC7187, RFC7188)

Working Group Summary: There was not much discussion of this document on the WG list, but some support was received, and no dissent was expressed.

Document Quality: The document describes the key security issues for the protcol it considers (OLSRv2).  The information is presented clearly and is easy to digest.

Personnel

Justin Dean (bebemaster@gmail.com) is the document shepherd for this document.  
Alvaro Retana (aretana@cisco.com) is the responsible AD.

(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 did a detailed review of the document and presented the comments to the list the same time this writeup is being written.  Comments were mostly editorial the review was posted to the MANET list.
 
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd is satisfied that suitable reviews, and in sufficient detail, 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. 


The document shepherd believes that no additional reviews are required or beneficial. 

(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 believes that there are no such concerns.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP

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?


While there wasn't much feedback on list about the document the shepherd has no concerns with consensus behind this document.  It's my assumption that the lack of feedback was due to lack of consern with the document rather than lack of interest in having it published. 

(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.
idnits reports one error
** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
     recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
     keywords. 
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 146: '...oyment of OLSRv2 SHOULD use the securi...'
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 147: '...      specified in [RFC7183] but MAY use another mechanism if more...'
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 150: '...      rekeying) SHOULD be considered."...'
  but these instances are included in quotes from RFC7181 so are not true errors.

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

NA
 
(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.
 

There are no downrefs.

 

(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).


 This document does not create any registries, nor does it request any allocations from existing IANA registries.

 

(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.

 

This document does not create any registries, nor does it request any allocations from existing IANA 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.
 

NA
Back