Shepherd writeup

Document shepherd write-up for                                   2011-07-02

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

>       Steven Blake, PCN co-chair <>
        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. 
>       The shepherd expects that there are additional requirements
>       (e.g., congestion control) that are generic to any Internet
>       protocol, that are not explicitly captured in this draft, but
>       expects that as the working group begins to define (or adapt)
>       one or more signaling protocols, that these requirements will
>       be taken into account.
        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. 
>       These concerns were not raised in the discussion of this draft
>       (blame the shepherd).
        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?   

>       The -03 version generated significant debate on the working group
>       mailing list during WGLC.  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 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 with one warning: Page 2 is 59 lines
>       long.  An update correcting this issue (-07) will be posted.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
>       Yes.
        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]. 

>       There are references to draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-09 and
>       draft-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-06.  The immediate predecessors to
>       each document were forwarded to the IESG, but GEN-ART and AD
>       review raised several comments that need to be addressed by the
>       working group for each document before they can be progressed.
>       The working group is actively addressing these issues, and these
>       documents should be ready to be re-advanced in the next few months.

  (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 

>       PCN (RFC 5559) conveys pre-congestion information to an egress
>       router via in-band packet marking.  This document defines the
>       requirements for signaling protocols that convey PCN feedback
>       information from a PCN egress router to a PCN decision point,
>       and between the decision point and a PCN ingress router (if they
>       are not co-located).  The signaling requirements apply specifically
>       to the Single Marking and Controlled Load PCN edge behaviours being
>       defined in the PCN working group.

     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).