Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy - Write Up

Previous state: WG Document
Current state:  Last Call Finished on 11-17

1. Summary

* Responsible Area Director: Adrian Farrel
* Document Shepherd: Ines Robles

 The purpose of this document is to specify an automated policy for
 the routing of MPL multicast messages with admin-local scope in a
 border router.

The Intended RFC status is Informational.

2. Review and Consensus

During the last call there were no comments against this document.

This document was reviewed in roll working group.

3. Intellectual Property

Email sent to the Authors asking confirmation:

Peter van der Stock replied on 11/21/2014 for version 01, it applies as well
for version 02, since version 02 fixed typo errors. Robert Cragie did not reply
yet, email sent to Robert on 11/20/2014. Robert Cragie replied on 12/07

4. Other points

Checklist for draft 02

Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for
publication? Yes.

Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?  Yes.

Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief
summary? Yes

Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the
introduction? Yes.

Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been
requested and/or completed? No apply.

Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see ​ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of
BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined
that the document passes the tests? (In general, nits should be fixed before
the document is sent to the IESG. If there are reasons that some remain (false
positives, perhaps, or abnormal things that are necessary for this particular
document), explain them.)

      Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 0 comments (--).

 == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
     feeds but 12 pages

Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related
to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and
79? Peter van der Stock replied Robert Cragie replied

Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?

Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement
and are otherwise in a clear state? Yes. I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast is
mentioned in normative references. This document should wait until
I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast is published.

If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are
those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the
abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction?  No

If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered? No apply.

IANA Considerations:
Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? No apply.

Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so
they can perform the required actions.

Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries? No apply.

Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in ​ to be sure)? No apply.

For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group
actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the
alternatives? No apply.

Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with
those of other registries),? and have the initial contents and valid value
ranges been clearly specified? No apply