Shepherd writeup
rfc7264-11

An extension to RELOAD to support Relay Peer Routing (draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-07)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. It defines extensions to draft-ietf-p2psip-base, which also has an intended status of Proposed Standard.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

(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:

RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive routing for routing messages. An optional extesion that can be used to provide shorter routes for responses (reducing the overhead on intermediate nodes) consists in supporting a relay peer routing mode. This defines the required extension as well as describes potential use cases where it can be used. 

Working Group Summary:

The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing special worth noting.

Document Quality:

The document was thoroughly reviewed by Marc Petit-Huguenin and Carlos J. Bernardos.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

Carlos J. Bernardos

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Gonzalo Camarillo

(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 Document Shepherd has personally done a thorough review of the document. Some changes (mainly editorial) were requested to the authors and included in the last revision of the draft. The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.

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

The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews.

(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.

(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 has no such 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?

Yes.

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

There has been an IPR claim in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. The Working Group was informed of this IPR claim  befor version -02 of the draft was published. No WG discussion has happened.  

(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 WG consensus behind 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.

(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.

There are no nits. The automatic nits detection tool detects 2 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses, but I could
not find them, so I guess it is a detection mistake.

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

The document meets the review criteria.

(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?

Yes, there is one (which is actually a downward normative reference) to draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-04. This document has not been updated since October 2011. The plan is to contact authors to ensure the document is finalized or nominate a new editor to complete the work.

(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.

Yes. There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-04, which intended status 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.

(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 does not require any 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.

None.

(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 formal language segments exist.
Back