As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl
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?
The RFC type being requested is Informational.
Informational is the proper type of RFC because this is an implementation report
of the features provided by several implementations of the rpki-rtr
protocol. It is not itself a protocol
The title page header indicates that the intended status is Informational.
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
This document is an implementation report for the RPKI Router
protocol as defined in [RFC6810]. The editor did not verify the
accuracy of the information provided by respondents. The respondents
are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their
responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for
which their responses represent. Respondents were asked to only use
the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
This is a survey of existing implementations, so not a matter subject
to much opinion or dispute. Discussion on the working group list was
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
As stated, the draft is a survey of implementations of a protocol. As
stated, the subject matter is not really subject to dispute. The
respondants were trusted to provide true and accurate answers to the
survey. There were few responses to the wg last call, but the three
co-chairs have all reviewed the draft and believe it is ready for
publication. The draft is well written and organized.
As an informational survey document, there will not be implementations.
However, the document does report on implementations.
There were no substantive issues. One reviewer did point to an
implementation that was not covered in an early version and that
implementation was added to the survey.
There is no need for MIB doctor review, Media Type review, or any
other expert review.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
The Document Shepherd is Sandra Murphy.
The Responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant.
(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 document shepherd read the draft in an early version and in the
final version, for clarity, thoroughness, consistency and care in the
formatted tables that report the survey findings.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd has no concerns about depth or breadth of the reviews.
As said, the document is a survey of implementations. In such a document,
reviews would be needed to check for inconsistencies, lack of thoroughness,
or typos. The small number of reviews (including the three chairs) were
sufficient to do that check.
(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
(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
The document is an implementation report for a standards track
protocol that was published Jan 2013 as PS. This is an early report
in the standards progress process, but good to report that this many
implementations (including two vendors) already exist.
(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.
All authors have responded to confirm their conformance with IPR disclosures.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures are noted in the IETF IPR database for this draft
or the individual draft this replaces.
(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?
There have been no issues or disagreements noted. Though minimal, the
responses have been uniformly positive.
(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.)
Not to the knowledge of the document shepherd
(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
The id-nits reports:
No issues found here.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
One warning detected the use of a FQDN that was not the suggested example
domain name. But that use was a reference to an existing URL, so not an
The other warning and comment were the seemingly unavoidable statements
about rfc2119 boilerplate without use of that language, and the age of
(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?
Yes. All are noted as normative.
(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.
This docment may at some later state be used to support the advancement
of RFC6810 to full standard. Publication of this document will not itself
change the status of RFC6810. Widespread deployment and use of the
RFC6810 protocol is a much stronger requirement to meet.
(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 makes no IANA requests and defines no protocol extensions to
(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.
No new IANA registries are created or requested by this document.
(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.