Shepherd writeup

PROTO writeup:

        Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) 
              for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains    

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.  


   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?  


(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.


(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?


(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 


(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

   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?


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?


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


(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).

   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.