(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 draft updates rules for using RFC5444 and provides recommendations on correct usage. The header indicates the appropriate 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:
RFC 5444 specifies a generalized MANET packet/message format and
describes an intended use to multiplex MANET routing protocol
messages that is mandated for use by RFC 5498. This document updates
RFC 5444 by providing rules and recommendations for how the
multiplexer operates and how protocols can use the packet/message
format. In particular, the mandatory rules prohibit a number of uses
of RFC 5444 that have been suggested in various proposals, and which
would have led to interoperability problems, to the impediment of
protocol extension development, and to an inability to use optional
generic RFC 5444 parsers.
Working Group Summary
The document was originally requested as informational from working group members who were attempting to use RFC5444 for their protocol development. The design principles of the packet format were not readily apparent and the proposed usage of RFC5444 would have caused issues into the future. It was decided that certain behaviors were not just bad choices but should be disallowed and the document was moved to standard so that it could update RFC5444 normatively. There was some minor disagreement regarding the amount of informational information regarding the rational of design decisions of RFC5444, there being enough vs wanting even more.
There are multiple implementations (~10 that the shepherd is aware of) of RFC5444 which are compliant with the updated rules. The reviews done within the working group last call didn’t raise any major issues.
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
(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 document Shepherd has read the document as well as implemented RFC5444 that complies with the rules provided. The shepherd is okay with the rules provided in the draft. The shepherd feels the document is ready and provides necessary rules and more detailed guidance for those wishing to use RFC5444.
(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
(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
(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
(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 has consensus with moving the document forward. There is support among both the authors and the members who requested the document be drafted. No major issues were raised during last call with most comments supporting publication.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).
Comment of note: an IPv4 example but no IPv6 example. The example (in section 6.1) is simple and having an IPv6 example as well would be needlessly redundant; IPv6 is explicitly mentioned in the previous line so it’s clear that it’s supported.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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.
Yes RFC5444 will be updated and it’s listed in the title as well as abstract.
(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).
(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.
(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.