(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?
BCP. This is appropriate given the level of deployment of the approaches described in the document and the experience drawn upon. It is properly marked as BCP.
(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:
This document describes best practice for setup and configuration of inter-domain multicast peering, between different administrative domains, for a set of use cases. It focuses on source-specific multicast (SSM).
Working Group Summary:
There is strong consensus in the WG for publication of this document.
The document is generally well written. It is lengthy, and probably could be streamlined, but having reached consensus on the current text, it would seem better to publish as is than delay publication further while the text is abbreviated. During the evolution of the document, good discussion was held on a number of points in the document, and a number of changes made as a result, e.g., the focus on SSM.
Contributions to this document were made by multiple mboned WG members from multiple vendors.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Tim Chown is the shepherd. No responsible AD is indicated in the document status at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp/.
(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 reviewed the document twice as OPS-DIR reviewer during the last few months before production of the final version, and was thus happy to also act as document shepherd. I am happy that the final version addresses all significant issues raised by the WG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns. There has been a large number of reviews of the document during its lifetime, alongside good discussion in physical WG meetings.
(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. The document focuses on an operational deployment model for inter-domain IP multicast.
(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.
As stated above, the document could be more streamlined, but having taken a long time to reach the current agreed version it would seem more prudent to publish the document as is rather than spend more time abbreviating it.
There is strong WG consensus for publishing the document as it stands.
(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 strong WG consensus to publish the 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.
The Nits checker reports only four minor warnings, plus a comment on the downref to RFC 4609 (see below).
(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?
The two BCP references could be considered 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?
No. All normative references are published RFCs.
(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 is a downwards reference to RFC 4609, which is Informational.
(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 changes required.
(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 document has no IANA considerations.
(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.