(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 intended status is Informational as indicated in the header.
As this document provides a summary of various RFCs and does not include any new proposal, I believe Informational is appropriate status for it.
(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:
Due to long-term development efforts, understanding TCP is becoming difficult as it consists of many separated RFCs.
This document provide a summary of the various documents related to TCP standards, guidelines and best current practices.
The objective of the document is to provide a roadmap for TCP standards so that implementers and other parties can reach proper information smoothly and quickly.
Working Group Summary:
This document is the update from RFC4614 which has been published for the same purpose.
As the information in RFC4614 is getting stale, there has been consensus in the WG to publish a new version.
One discussion point was whether we will keep publishing this type of documents from time to time or find a way to provide up-to-date information through dynamic contents such as Wiki or perpetual I-D. After some discussions, we have concluded to publish this document as an RFC. The consensus was clear as we need further discussions for the other methods and there was no strong support for them.
The document has been reviewed and discussed by multiple participants in the WG.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Yoshifumi Nishida is the Document Shepherd for this document.
The Responsible Area Director is Martin Stiemerling
(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've reviewed the documents and made several editorial suggestions.
I believe the quality of this draft is mature enough to be published.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I have no concern about it.
(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.
There is no need for particular reviews.
(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 have no concerns with the 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?
Not all authors responded to the e-mail queries as some of them might be very active particpants now.
However, it should be noted that this draft is an informatinal RFC which updates RFC4614.
We have seen no IPR issue has been reported on RFC4614 as of now.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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 document is widely supported as we have seen positive comments in the WG meetings as well as the ML.
The consensus was solid and clear.
(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.)
No one has indicated 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.
ID nits gives the following errors and warnings. I've inserted my comments in the lines.
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords
-> This document quotes texts from some RFCs which include 2119 keywords, but this document itself doesn't use them.
From this reason, I believe we don't need the boilerplate.
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2780' is defined on line 1994, but no explicit reference was found in the text
-> It is referred in the text. This might be a bug for ID nits?
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 761 (Obsoleted by RFC 793)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1106 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1110 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1146 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1379 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1644 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1693 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2012 (Obsoleted by RFC 4022)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2452 (Obsoleted by RFC 4022)
-> These are intentional. This document needs to refer these documents in order to describe the current status.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
I believe no formal review is needed.
(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?
There is no such document, but the following the documents are in the middle of advancement.
I-D.ietf-tcpm-1323bis is in RFC Editor Queue.
I-D.ietf-tcpm-fastopen has been through WGLC and publication request has been submitted.
(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 document obsoletes RFC 4614. This is stated in the header and the abstract.
(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).
The document does not involve any IANA considerations.
(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.
There is no need to require expert review for future allocations.
(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 contains no formal language.