Shepherd writeup
rfc7214-04

(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?

Proposed Standard. "Standards Track" is indicated on the title page. 

(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

   RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated
   Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-Ach.
   However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been
   distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries.
   This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel
   (G-ACh)" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching
   Architecture (MPLS)" heading.  This document updates RFC 5586.
   This document also updates RFC 6374, RFC 6428, RFC 6378, RFC 6427,
   RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, and RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing.

Working Group Summary

   There is solid WG consensus to progress this document. 

Document Quality

   This document has been carefully reviewed by the MPLS WG. It does not
   define a protocol and thus cannot be implemented, other than by creating
   a well organized IANA registry. 

Personnel

   Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area
   Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  

   The document shepherd has read the document, has checked the updates 
   based on last call comments, and has checked IDnits. 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

   no concerns. 

(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? 

   no. 

(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.

   no concerns

(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.

   The authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related
   to this document. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

   No IPR has been filed that references this document. 

(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?   

   Solid consensus. 

(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 threats, no indication of discontent. 

(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.

   No ID nits. 

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

   No formal review needed. IANA reviews documents as part of the normal 
   process following publication request. 

(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?

   There are two references to Internet Drafts. 

(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. 

   No. All normative references are to standards track documents. 

(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.

   This document updates the IANA section of seven other documents, all of
   which are listed on the cover page, discussed in the abstract and introduction,
   and listed as normative references. 

(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 IANA considerations is the entire point of this document. 

(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.

   draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries creates a new registry that is a
   home to contain other existing registries. The allocation procedure for
   these existing registries remains the same as before. 

(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.

   no such section. 
Back