Document shepherd write-up for 2011-07-02
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
> Steven Blake, PCN co-chair <email@example.com>
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?
(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?
(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.
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> 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
(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.)
(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 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
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:
> 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.
> The document was reviewed by the document shephard (Steven Blake).