Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc8796-09

Write-Up for draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-05


(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 document should be published as a Proposed Standard.

   Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC since the document 
   specifies both protocol procedures and protocol elements.

(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 defines extensions for RSVP-TE to reduce the amount
   of RSVP-TE signalling for FRR and improves the overall scalability
   in case of node or link failures.

Working Group Summary

  No controversies, the working group supports this document.

Document Quality

  The document is in good shape and well written. The motivation for
  defining the extensions is clear.


Personnel

  Nicolai Leymann is the Document Shepherd
  Deborah Brungard 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 IESG.

   The Shepherd/WG Chair has followed this document in detail since 
   it was posted as an individual document.

(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? If so, describe the review that
took place.

   No review necessary.

(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.

  All the authors has confirmed that all IPRs realting to this document
  that they are aware of has been appropriatedly disclosed.

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

  There is one IPR disclosed against draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte
  which was replaced this document. The working group has been made aware 
  of this both at wgap and wglc. There has been no discussion on 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?

   There is a wide spread support for this 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.) 

   No such threats.

(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
thorough.

   ID nits has to comments:
   - date is in the past
   - Line 820 looks like a reference but probably isn't

(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 references are correctly split into Normative and Informative
  references.

(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 to existing 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. 

  No downward references.

(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.

   When this document is published no other documents will be changed.


(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 8126).

 The document needs two Association Type for Extended ASSOCIATION 
   Objects:

    Value  Name                         Reference
    -----  ----                         ---------
    TBD-1  B-SFRR-Ready Association     Section 3.1
    TBD-2  B-SFRR-Active Association    Section 3.2

(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.

    (see above)
  
(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 automated checks required.
Back