(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?
Proposed Standard is being requested.
Based on RFC 2026 and RFC 6410, this is the proper type of RFC.
This type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.
(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:
This memo describes SEND SAVI, a mechanism to provide source address
validation using the SEND protocol. The proposed mechanism is intended to
complement ingress filtering techniques to provide a finer granularity on
the control of the source addresses used.
Working Group Summary:
There is SAVI WG consensus behind the document.
Document Quality:
This document was thoroughly reviewed by Ana Kukec, Tony Cheneau, Greg
Daley and Jean-Michel Combes.
Personnel:
The Document Shepherd is Jean-Michel Combes (jeanmichel.combes at gmail.com),
as savi WG chair.
The Responsible Area Director is Ted Lemon (ted.lemon at nominum.com)
(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.
During his review, the Document Shepherd focused on these main points:
- Compliance with "Source Address Validation Improvement Framework"
document (draft-ietf-framework-06)
- Compliance with issues raised during the IESG review for "FCFS SAVI:
First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation Improvement for Locally
Assigned IPv6 Addresses" (RFC 6620)
- Compliance with SEND specifications
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
The document Shepherd have no 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.
As the csi WG is closed now, the document Shepherd thinks there is no more
place to request a review from SEND experts. So, the document Shepherd
thinks this document doesn't need review from a particular or from broader
perspective.
(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.
The Document Shepperd has no specific concerns or issues with this document.
(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?
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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document.
(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?
The WG consensus is strong behind this document.
(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.)
Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.
(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.
The Document Shepherd didn't find any ID nits in this document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All references within this document have 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?
There are no normative references that are not ready for advancement or are
otherwise in an unclear state.
(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.
There are no downward normative references.
(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.
The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.
(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).
This document has no actions for IANA.
(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.
This document has no actions for IANA.
(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.
This document doesn't include sections written in a formal language.