Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

This is a shepherd report for: draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-16
DCCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses

Document History

     1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
     work item there?

DCCP is maintained by TSVWG.

     2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG	to not adopt
     the document?

There was discussion about whether the requirements as represented by
ATSSS from 3GPP would be addressed by this spec or by other means.  It
was not the responsibility of the IETF to decide on the different
technologies that might be used, and there was support for progressing
this specification as one alternative that could be realised.

     3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme	discontent? If
     so, please summarize 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.)


     4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
     the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
     plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
     either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere

There is one fork of the Linux tree that includes support for this
extension. This was demonstrated at IETF Hackathons and the results
reported to the TSVWG. See also:

Additional Reviews

     5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
     IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
     from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
     reviews took place.

No. There is also multi-path work for MP-TCP and for MP-QUIC, but this
specification related to use with DCCP.

     6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
     such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There were no reviews.

     7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
     been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
     formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
     the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
     comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
     in RFC 8342?

There is no Yang module.

     8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
     final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
     BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No automated checks needed to be performed.

Document Shepherd Checks

     9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
     document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
     to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document completed review within the WG included invited reviews and
WG feedback after which it was revised. There was a final WGLC in
02/2024, in which no significant changes were requested.  Rev 14 of this
document is now thought to be complete.

     10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
     reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
     and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent


     11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
     Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
     Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
     of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document was originally charted as Experimental. However, once the
work had progressed there was a request to move this to PS. This case
was presented to the WG and was discussed. Finally a consensus call
confirmed that the WG wished to publish this as a PS in 07/2023.

     12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
     property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
     the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
     not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
     to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The current IPR disclosures were discussed by TSVWG. All authors have
declared that they are not aware of any undisclosed IPR.

     13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
     listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
     is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors have confirmed this.

     14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
     tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
     some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one unused Reference: 'I-D.muley-network-based-bonding-hybrid-access', 
but no explicit reference was found in the text. This ID has expired and 
as far as I know is not adopted by any IETF group. This could be removed
prior to publication if unused.

     15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
     Statement on Normative and Informative References.


     16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
     the community have sufficient access to review any such normative


     17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
     97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
     list them.

There is a DOWNREF. 
This is a Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6234, SHA256 is used to generate a HMAC. 
This RFC is listed in the DOWNREF registry. 

     18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
     submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
     If so, what is the plan for their completion?


     19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
     so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
     listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
     introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
     where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.


     20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
     associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
     that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
     that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
     allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The IANA considerations were reviewed by the Shepherd, and have been
reviewed by IANA. IANA is in the course of preparing a provisional
allocation of the codepoints based on this spec.

     21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
     future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
     Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

See above, IANA provisional allocation is in progress.