Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc6627-09

Document shepherd write-up for                                   2011-07-02
draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-06

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

>       Steven Blake, PCN co-chair <slblake@petri-meat.com>

        Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

>       Yes & yes.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members?

>       WG members - Yes

        Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

>       No

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

>       No

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues 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.

>       No

        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.

>       Not applicable

        Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

>       No

  (1.e) 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?

>       This document has been under development for several years.
>       The -04 version generated significant discussion on the
>       working group mailing list.  The editor addressed the comments
>       to everyone's satisfaction.  There are no vocal dissenters.

  (1.f) 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
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

>       No

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

>       The document passes ID-nits.


  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?

>       The document is a rationale document and has no normative
>       references.  The reference section is entitled "Informative
>       References".

        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
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

>       Not applicable.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?

>       An IANA Considerations section exists, but no requests are
>       made to IANA.

        If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

>       Not applicable

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

>       Not applicable

  (1.k) 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

>    The PCN mechanism in routers in the interior of a PCN domain marks
>    packets when certain configured rates are exceeded.  The PCN working
>    group explored a number of approaches for encoding this pre-congestion
>    information into the IP header.  This document describes the various
>    approaches that were examined and discusses the constraints that had
>    to be satisfied by a viable encoding mechanism.

     Working Group Summary

>       The document was subject to thorough review by the PCN working
>       group, and strong consensus for publication was reached.

     Document Quality

>       The document was reviewed by the document shephard (Steven Blake).
Back