Extensions to Generic Aggregate RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations over Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Domains
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-11

[Ballot comment]

- 2.13: I'm sorry, I don't get what methods from the
referenced RFCs you mean. Can you clarify?  I had a
(very) quick look at section 4 of 4860 and didn't see
anything at all about authentication or data
integrity.

- Section 5: the first sentence is not.

- Section 5: RFC2747 specifics HMAC-MD5 right? That
is still ok for this purpose but it would be prudent
perhaps to move to HMAC-SHA256 today. Is there any
move to do something like that (in RSVP generally I
guess, not specific to PCN).

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for putting this on the experimental track and for clarifying
what experimental feedback you want to see.

It might be worth adding to the explanation of the experiment something
about scoping. In particular, I think that the key issue is that you
expect that every node along the path of the flow (i.e. the RSVP path)
from PCN-ingress-node to PCN-egress-node must be part of this experiment
(i.e. aware of the 248 class number) for the experiment to function. In
practice, this probably means that you want to conduct the experiment in
domains of nodes that are all aware of the experiment (or do funky stuff
with tunnels).

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for putting this on the experimantal track and for clarifying
what experimental feedback you want to see.

It might be worth adding to the explanation of the experiment something
about scoping. In particular, I think that the key issue is that you
expect that every node along the path of the flow (i.e. the RSVP path)
from PCN-ingress-node to PCN-egress-node must be part of this experiment
(i.e. aware of the 248 class number) for the experiment to function. In
practice, this probably means that you want to conduct the experiment in
domains of nodes that are all aware of the experiment (or do funky stuff
with tunnels).

PROTO writeup:

        Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
              for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains   
                    draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-10

PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (tsvwg WG Co-Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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?

  Experimental RFC is requested because this is new functionality
  for which implementation and usage experience is desired
  before producing a proposed standard.  The title page header
  indicates the intended Experimental status.

(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 extends Generic Aggregated RSVP functionality (see
  RFC 4860) in order to support admission control for Pre-Congestion
  Notification (PCN).

Working Group Summary

  The document spent a while in the WG.  As a result of WG Last
  Call, the PCN admission control decision point was moved from the
  ingress node to the egress node in order to better match RFC 4860
  functionality, and RSVP admission control is no longer performed
  for the end-to-end reservation wrt the aggregate reservation for
  the PCN domain, as PCN admission control at the egress node suffices.

Document Quality

  Francois LeFaucheur
  and Bob Briscoe reviewed during WG Last Call, and provided comments
  that resulted in significant improvements.
  RSVP Directorate Review was performed by Scott Bradner.  There are
  no known implementations due in part to the significant
  changes made as a result of WG Last Call. 

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: David Black (tsvwg WG co-chair)
  Responsible Area Director: Spencer Dawkins (Transport)

(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 Shepherd was recently assigned to this draft.  As
  WG chair, he has been tracking this draft, and has read it in
  detail.  The Document Shepherd believes that the draft is ready
  for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No.

(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?

  Operations review would be desirable.

(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.

  None.

(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?

  No.

(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 tsvwg WG works on a number of protocols that don't have large
  enough communities of interest to merit their own WGs, including
  RSVP.  Not every tsvwg WG member is familiar with or interested
  in RSVP.  The members of the WG who are interested in and familiar
  with RSVP understand and agree with this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

  No.

(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.

  idnits 2.13.01 ran clean (aside from noting a few extraneous
  space characters that don't need attention now).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  RSVP directorate review has been performed by Scott Bradner.

(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?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

  No.

(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).

  The IANA actions for this draft have already been performed by IANA.
  No further review is necessary.

(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.

  Not applicable.

(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.

  Not applicable.

PROTO writeup:

        Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
              for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains   
                    draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09

PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (tsvwg WG Co-Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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?

  Experimental RFC is requested because this is new functionality
  for which implementation and usage experience is desired
  before producing a proposed standard.  The title page header
  indicates the intended Experimental status.

(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 extends Generic Aggregated RSVP functionality (see
  RFC 4860) in order to support admission control for Pre-Congestion
  Notification (PCN).

Working Group Summary

  The document spent a while in the WG.  As a result of WG Last
  Call, the PCN admission control decision point was moved from the
  ingress node to the egress node in order to better match RFC 4860
  functionality, and RSVP admission control is no longer performed
  for the end-to-end reservation wrt the aggregate reservation for
  the PCN domain, as PCN admission control at the egress node suffices.

Document Quality

  Francois LeFaucheur
  and Bob Briscoe reviewed during WG Last Call, and provided comments
  that resulted in significant improvements.
  RSVP Directorate Review was performed by Scott Bradner.  There are
  no known implementations due in part to the significant
  changes made as a result of WG Last Call. 

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: David Black (tsvwg WG co-chair)
  Responsible Area Director: Spencer Dawkins (Transport)

(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 Shepherd was recently assigned to this draft.  As
  WG chair, he has been tracking this draft, and has read it in
  detail.  The Document Shepherd believes that the draft is ready
  for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No.

(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?

  Operations review would be desirable.

(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.

  None.

(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?

  No.

(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 tsvwg WG works on a number of protocols that don't have large
  enough communities of interest to merit their own WGs, including
  RSVP.  Not every tsvwg WG member is familiar with or interested
  in RSVP.  The members of the WG who are interested in and familiar
  with RSVP understand and agree with this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

  No.

(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.

  idnits 2.13.01 ran clean (aside from noting a few extraneous
  space characters that don't need attention now).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  RSVP directorate review has been performed by Scott Bradner.

(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?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

  No.

(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).

  The IANA actions for this draft have already been performed by IANA.
  No further review is necessary.

(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.

  Not applicable.

(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.

  Not applicable.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

NOTE: IANA has copied the IESG-designated expert, who should review this document and contact us if any changes affect the registrations described below.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/

type 248, "PCN" has been registered through the Expert Review process described in RFC 5226.

In the Class Types or C-Types - 248 PCN sub-registry also in the the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/

the following values have also been registered:

Class Types or C-Types:
1 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request
2 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request
3 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response
4 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response

In each of these five cases, the reference will be updated to [ RFC-to-be ].


Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4
  And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-08-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies extensions to Generic Aggregated RSVP
  RFC 4860 for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and Single
  Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre-
  Congestion Notification.







The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

PROTO writeup:

        Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
              for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains   
                    draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09

PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (tsvwg WG Co-Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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?

  Experimental RFC is requested because this is new functionality
  for which implementation and usage experience is desired
  before producing a proposed standard.  The title page header
  indicates the intended Experimental status.

(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 extends Generic Aggregated RSVP functionality (see
  RFC 4860) in order to support admission control for Pre-Congestion
  Notification (PCN).

Working Group Summary

  The document spent a while in the WG.  As a result of WG Last
  Call, the PCN admission control decision point was moved from the
  ingress node to the egress node in order to better match RFC 4860
  functionality, and RSVP admission control is no longer performed
  for the end-to-end reservation wrt the aggregate reservation for
  the PCN domain, as PCN admission control at the egress node suffices.

Document Quality

  Francois LeFaucheur
  and Bob Briscoe reviewed during WG Last Call, and provided comments
  that resulted in significant improvements.
  RSVP Directorate Review was performed by Scott Bradner.  There are
  no known implementations due in part to the significant
  changes made as a result of WG Last Call. 

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: David Black (tsvwg WG co-chair)
  Responsible Area Director: Spencer Dawkins (Transport)

(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 Shepherd was recently assigned to this draft.  As
  WG chair, he has been tracking this draft, and has read it in
  detail.  The Document Shepherd believes that the draft is ready
  for publication, but needs some minor editing.  In order to avoid
  further delaying this draft, the Document Shepherd will suggest
  changes during IETF Last Call.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No.

(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?

  Operations review would be desirable.  OPS-Dir review during IETF
  Last Call should suffice.

(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.

  None.

(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?

  No.

(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 tsvwg WG works on a number of protocols that don't have large
  enough communities of interest to merit their own WGs, including
  RSVP.  Not every tsvwg WG member is familiar with or interested
  in RSVP.  The members of the WG who are interested in and familiar
  with RSVP understand and agree with this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

  No.

(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.

  idnits 2.13.01 ran clean (aside from noting a few extraneous
  space characters that don't need attention now).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  RSVP directorate review has been performed by Scott Bradner.

(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?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

  No.

(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).

  The IANA actions for this draft have already been performed by IANA.
  No further review is necessary.

(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.

  Not applicable.

(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.

  Not applicable.

PROTO writeup:

        Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
              for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains   
                    draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09

PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (tsvwg WG Co-Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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?

  Experimental RFC is requested because this is new functionality
  for which implementation and usage experience is desired
  before producing a proposed standard.  The title page header
  indicates the intended Experimental status.

(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 extends Generic Aggregated RSVP functionality (see
  RFC 4860) in order to support admission control for Pre-Congestion
  Notification (PCN).

Working Group Summary

  The document spent a while in the WG.  As a result of WG Last
  Call, the PCN admission control decision point was moved from the
  ingress node to the egress node in order to better match RFC 4860
  functionality, and RSVP admission control is no longer performed
  for the end-to-end reservation wrt the aggregate reservation for
  the PCN domain, as PCN admission control at the egress node suffices.

Document Quality

  Francois LeFaucheur
  and Bob Briscoe reviewed during WG Last Call, and provided comments
  that resulted in significant improvements.
  RSVP Directorate Review was performed by Scott Bradner.  There are
  no known implementations due in part to the significant
  changes made as a result of WG Last Call. 

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: David Black (tsvwg WG co-chair)
  Responsible Area Director: Spencer Dawkins (Transport)

(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 Shepherd was recently assigned to this draft.  As
  WG chair, he has been tracking this draft, and has read it in
  detail.  The Document Shepherd believes that the draft is ready
  for publication, but needs some minor editing.  In order to avoid
  further delaying this draft, the Document Shepherd will suggest
  changes during IETF Last Call.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No.

(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?

  Operations review would be desirable.  OPS-Dir review during IETF
  Last Call should suffice.

(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.

  None.

(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?

  No.

(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 tsvwg WG works on a number of protocols that don't have large
  enough communities of interest to merit their own WGs, including
  RSVP.  Not every tsvwg WG member is familiar with or interested
  in RSVP.  The members of the WG who are interested in and familiar
  with RSVP understand and agree with this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

  No.

(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.

  idnits 2.13.01 ran clean (aside from noting a few extraneous
  space characters that don't need attention now).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  RSVP directorate review has been performed by Scott Bradner.

(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?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

  No.

(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).

  The IANA actions for this draft have already been performed by IANA.
  No further review is necessary.

(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.

  Not applicable.

(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.

  Not applicable.