Shepherd writeup
rfc6959-08

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document 
Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in 
particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for 
forwarding to the IESG for publication? 

Jean-Michel Combes (jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com) is the Document 
Shepherd, savi WG co-chair. He has done a review on the document and 
believes it is ready to be forwarded to IESG for publication. 

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any 
concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been 
performed? 

The document has had adequate reviews by key WG members.The document 
shepherd does not have any concerns regarding the depth or breadth of 
the reviews received. 

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs 
more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, 
operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, 
internationalization or XML? 

No. 

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 
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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this 
document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this 
issue. 

No. 

(1.e) 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? 

There is savi WG consensus behind the document. 

(1.f) 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 entered into the ID 
Tracker.) 

No. 

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document 
satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and 
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not 
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all 
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type 
and URI type reviews? 

The document shepherd has personally verified that the document 
satisfies all ID nits. The document does not need MIB doctor review. 
The document does not contain any media and URI types. 

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
informative? 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 strategy for their completion? 
Are there normative references that are downward references, as 
described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to 
support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them 
[RFC3967]. 

References are split into normative and informative sections. 

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the 
document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are 
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA 
registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, 
does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an 
allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document 
describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the 
Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed 
Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

This document has an IANA considerations section and no IANA 
considerations that needs to be taken care of. 

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document 
that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, 
MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? 

There are no such sections. 

(1.k) 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 
Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) effort aims to complement 
ingress filtering with finer-grained, standardized IP source address 
validation. This document describes threats enabled by IP source 
address spoofing both in the global and finer-grained context, 
describes currently available solutions and challenges, and provides a 
starting point analysis for finer-grained (host granularity) 
anti-spoofing work. 

Working Group Summary 
The normal WG process was followed. The document as it is now, 
reflects WG consensus. 

Document Quality 
The document was thoroughly reviewed by Pekka Savola, Marcelo Bagnulo, 
Eric Vyncke, Jari Arkko and Jean-Michel Combes.
Back