Shepherd writeup
rfc7648-09

(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? 

    Proposed Standard, as indicated in the title page header.
    This is part of the PCP protocol suite, of which all docs are PS.

(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 specifies a new PCP functional element denoted as a PCP
   Proxy.  The PCP Proxy relays PCP requests received from PCP clients
   to upstream PCP server(s).  A typical deployment usage of this
   function is to help establish successful PCP communications for PCP
   clients that can not be configured with the address of a PCP server
   located more than one hop away.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 

    The WG has consensus on this document, nothing particularly rough.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?

    It is unknown whether there are existing implementations, although
    the existence of this draft was motivated by experience from Apple's
    implementation.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? 

    Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>

Who is the Responsible Area Director? 

    Brian Haberman

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

    1) reviewed it for technical quality
    2) verified that review was done during WGLC by multiple individuals
       plus the authors
    3) reviewed it against WGLC feedback, which was tracked by issue tracker
       tickets, to verify all were addressed
    4) checked id-nits

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

    No.

(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. 

    None relevant.

(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. 

    None.

(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.

    Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

    No IPR disclosures filed.

(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? 

    It was discussed at length over a long period of time, by many in the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?

    No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

    None.

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

    None relevant.

(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? 

    All normative references are to RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

    No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

    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). 

    This document makes no request of IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations.

    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. 

    None applicable.
Back