As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
ProposedStandard
(This is indicated in the document 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 draft discusses considerations and methods for supporting and
securing a common method for AS-Migration within the BGPSec protocol.
Working Group Summary
There was considerable discussion about this document in both SIDR and IDR
working groups. I believe there were not any show stopping parts to this
conversation.
Document Quality
This document describes methods and considerations that could be used in
supporting and securing a common method of AS Migration used in networks
today.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Document Shepherd: Chris Morrow
AD: Alvaro Retana
(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.
I read the document (a few times now) and believe the document is ready for
publication. Folk in the working group seem to agree, and the partner document
in IDR (draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03) is moving forward at this time as well.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not harbor any concerns about this document.
(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.
I believe the parts of this document which require specialized review have been
reviewed. That review was done by IDR folk during the working group work on
that document as well.
(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.
I'm not concerned about 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.
Yes
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
N/A
(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 appears to be solid for 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.)
There are no threats at this time.
(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 idnits process turned up no significant issues.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes
(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 2 normative references to drafts:
I-D.ietf-idr-as-migration - should be changed to: RFC 7705I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol
The final reference should be resolved prior to final publication, I believe.
The first (idr draft) should be changed in auth48.
(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.
RFC5398 is referenced in this document, because AS numbers are used in the
document, numbers which are from the reserved AS number space. Noting that the
numbers used in this document are private/reserved seems to be on point, and
the references seem to be relevant to the flow and intent of the document.
(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.
No
(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).
I reviewed the IANA considerations section in this document, there are no
considerations for IANA here.
(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.
N/A
(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.
N/A