Shepherd writeup
rfc7338-10

Document Writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

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's a requirements and frameworks draft, there is no protocol being 
specified. Yes, it's on the title page.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

This document presents a set of requirements and a framework for
providing a Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire (PW) over MPLS PSNs.  The
requirements identified in this document are related to architecture,
signaling and maintenance aspects of Point-to-Multipoint PW
operation.  They are proposed as guidelines for the standardization
of such mechanisms.  Among other potential applications, Point-to-
Multipoint PWs can be used to optimize the support of multicast layer
2 services (Virtual Private LAN Service and Virtual Private Multicast
Service) as defined in the Layer 2 Virtual Private Network Working
Group.

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?

This draft has taken a while as it required extensive rewriting by a new editor following 
the previous time it was submitted to the IESG. This added quite a bit of time to the
process, but has greatly improved the quality of the draft.

There was a bit of controversy regarding a late IPR declaration. That is discussed in 
section 8 below.

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? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

As this is a requirements and framework draft, there can be no implementations.

Stewart Bryant deserves special mention as the AD that resulted in the document 
largely being re-written, which improved its quality.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Andy Malis is the Document Shepherd
Adrian Farrel is the Responsible 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
the IESG.

The document shepherd has worked with the authors through the draft's later 
revisions, and proposed new text to clear the IPR situation discussed in section 8.

(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.

No.

(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 at this point.

(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.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Yes. This IPR disclosure, #2249, came in very late in the process, and the inventors 
were two of the co-authors. While one could argue that it's hard to worry about IPR 
when there's no protocol being defined or anything to implement, the WG chairs (with 
the consensus of the WG) decided to be extra cautious, and new text was written that 
removed the optional procedure that was the subject of the IPR disclosure. Thus, to be 
precise, that IPR disclosure no longer applies to the revision of the draft that is now 
being submitted to the IESG, but rather to an earlier revision.

(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?

Yes, it has good WG consensus. Given the IPR and other discussions, the WG is very 
aware of this draft.

(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.

(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
thorough.

There is one miscellaneous warning regarding pre-RFC5378 text. The -00 version of 
this draft is dated 9/4/08, which is pre-RFC5378. The RFC Editor can ensure that the 
proper boilerplate is used for this case.

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

N/A

(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?

No, but there is one informative reference still in progress, draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-
requirements-05. Note that this draft expired about 10 months ago. The IESG may 
wish to simply remove this reference, or leave it as a work in progress and see if it can 
be renewed or progressed.

(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.

No.

(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.

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).

N/A

(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.

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.

N/A
Back