Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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?

Intended status: Standards Track
The document defines functional behaviour for new elements used for transporting IPv4
multicast traffic over IPv6 multicast networks (mB4 and mAFTR).

(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 document defines a mechanism for transporting IPv4 multicast
traffic over single-stack IPv6 multicast service provider's networks.
This is achieved through the use of the underlying IPv6 multicast
distribution tree. The IPv4 traffic is statelessly encapsulated in
IPv6. The main benefit of this solution is using an IPv6
multicast network for the efficient distribution of IPv4 based
multicast content.

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

There is consensus in the WG for the publication of this
document. WGLC was originally completed in 2012, but the
document has been delayed in progressing due to higher
priority WG documents.

Document Quality

 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?

An implementation was demoed at IETF82 which showed interworking
between a vendor's implementation of the mAFTR and a mB4
implementation. An open source based implementation of the
mB4 function is available.


 Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

Softwire co-chair, Ian Farrer, is the Document Shepherd.
Terry Manderson is the Responsible AD.

(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.

The document is well writen and ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any 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.


(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.


(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.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

One IPR disclosure has been raised relating to USPTO #9,014,189.
The WG was asked how to proceed with the draft in light of the IPR claim. From
the responses received, there is consensus to proceed with the draft. 

(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 achieved and all of the related active 
participants agree on the advancement of 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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

No errors and flaws. 

(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?


(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.


(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 contains no requests to 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.


(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.

The document does not contain any formal language. All example multicast IP addresses used
are compliant with RFC6676.

Thank you for taking care of the document.