# Document History
(!) Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence
of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad
agreement
While there was not widespread support, there was more than sufficient
WG support for the document, and no unaddressed concerns.
(2) Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?
There was no significant controversy regarding the document.
(3) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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.)
There have been no threats of appeal that I have heard of.
(4) For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations
reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends)
or elsewhere (where)?
As a problem statement document, this draft does not define protocol.
Some of the suggestions reference other documents, at least some of
which have been implemented.
# Additional Reviews
*5( Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore
benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe
which reviews took place.
While this document is related to BGP, it does not specify any BGP
protocol changes. I have confirmed with the IDR chairs that there is
no need for formal IDR concurrence, although that WG will be copied on
the WG last call.
(6) Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
There is no formal language or other constructs that require formal
expert review in this draft.
(7) If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax
and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG
module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC 8342?
There is no YANG in this draft.
(8) Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of
the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
There are no formal specifications of this form, and thus no such
checks apply.
# Document Shepherd Checks
(9) Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes. The shepherd has reviewed the document over several iterations.
As far as I can tell, it is now clear, factually correct, and ready to
be processed by the AD.
(10) Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
The Routing Area does not have such a list of common issues. As this
document falls squarely within the routing area, I do not believe there
are problems with common concerns from other areas.
(11) What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
(Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of
RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
This document is intended for Informational status. It is a
description of problems that have been observed in operation, and as
such is useful information for the community.
(12) Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP
79? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been
filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion,
including links to publicly-available messages when applicable.
All authors have been reminded of the IETF IPR rules, and they have
indicated that all known, relevant patents have been disclosed. More
precisely, no IPR has been declared against this document.
(13) Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
There are five front page authors. To the best of my knowledge, all
are aware of this document being progressed and are willing to be
listed as front page authors. There are no specially named
contributors, and there are a number of people whose contributions are
acknowledged.
(14) Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some
incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The only I-D nits complaints are to drafts which have been revised
since this was last revised, which I understand to be a non-issue. I
do not see any issues related to the content guidelines on
authors.ietf.org.
(15) Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References.
The arrangement of references seems appropriate to me. I realize that
for Informational documents deciding what is a Normative reference is a
judgment call, and others may differ with some of the judgments.
(16) List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are freely available. More specifically, all
normative references are RFCs.
(17) Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
As this is intended for publication as an Informational RFC, there are
no normative downward references.
(18) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
As noted in the answer to question 16, all normative references are to
published RFCs.
(19) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are
those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This Informational document does not change the status of any existing
documents.
(20) 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA
assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its
initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC
8126).
The IANA considerations section states that the document requires no
IANA actions.
(21) List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
The IANA considerations section states that the document requires no
IANA actions.