(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 documents a valuable mechanism developed by the WG to provide full fast reroute coverage.
Yes, the title page indicates the correct type.
(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:
This document describes a mechanism that provides fast reroute in an IP network through encapsulation to "not-via" addresses. A single level of encapsulation is used. The mechanism protects unicast, multicast and LDP traffic against link, router and shared risk group failure, regardless of network topology and metrics.
The mechanisms presented in this document are purely illustrative of the general approach and do not constitute a protocol specification. The document represents a snapshot of the work of the working group at the time of publication and is published as a document of record. Additional work is needed to specify the necessary routing protocol extensions to support this IPFRR method before implementation or deployment.
Working Group Summary:
No issues. There is consensus in the WG to proceed with publication.
The document has no substantive issues.
Alvaro Retana is the Document Shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director. [Stewart Bryant is the AD assigned to the WG, but he is an author.]
(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 (currently in it's 10th iteration) has been thoroughly reviewed. Comments have been made by the Document Shepherd related to clarity, form and content. All comments have been addressed. The document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
(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.
(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. The question has been raised throughout the process.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes, the document has IPR disclosures attached from the authors and a third party. No concerns have been raised in the WG.
(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?
This document has been a WG item for about 6 years. During this time the mechanism (and alternatives to it) have been discussed in depth. There is consensus to publish this document as an Informational RFC.
At the time of publication there is no demand to deploy this technology, however in view of the subtleties involved in the design of routing protocol extensions to provide IP Fast Reroute (IPFRR) the Routing Area Working Group considered it desirable to publish this document to place on record the design consideration of the not-via address approach.
(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.)
(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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(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).
There are no IANA considerations which arise from this document.
(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.