As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
Informational. It is specified as informational in the header. It is an
implementation report, and I believe Informational is appropriate for
(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:
The document is an implementation report that is being used as part of
advancing RFC 4601 to Internet Standard.
Working Group Summary
The WG fully supports the process of advancing RFC 4601 and as
part of that doing a survey. This is the result of the survey. There
were a couple of minor comments that have been incorporated in
this final version. There is no controversy.
There was a lot of effort going into formulating the survey, this
document contains the results of the survey, and the document
has been reviewed by multiple people.
Stig Venaas <firstname.lastname@example.org> is the shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is the AD.
(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
I have reviewed this document. I found a few issues that were addressed
in the latest revision. I think the quality is good.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The content is fairly trivial as it just summarizes reports from a
survey. At least 3 different people have carefully reviewed the document.
They all had minor concerns that have been adressed.
(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
(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
No concerns. The only thing is whether there are any formalities regarding
contents or format of implementation reports. It is important that this
document is sufficient as an implementation report for advancing 4601.
(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.
It's almost unthinkable there is an IPR on the implementation report.
Two of the authors confirmed no IPR. We were unable to get in touch with
the author from Huawei. However Mike McBride who is from Huawei don't
think they have one.
I sent an email to the pim WG asking if anyone has concerns about this
situation and no concerns were raised.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
Only a few people responded during the WGLC, but they are all
active WG participants. I believe it is sufficient as it is just the
results of a survey where both the survey and the results have been
presented to the WG before.
(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 discontent or any negative comments.
(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
4 lines longer than 72 characters, the longest 76.
The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year. They are from 2012.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Don't think any formal reviews needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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).
No IANA actions.
(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.
(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.