Shepherd writeup
rfc7496-07

(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?
PS


(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:
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is a transport protocol
originally defined to run on top of the network protocols IPv4 or IPv6.
This document defines two additional policies for the Partial
Reliability Extension of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(PR-SCTP) allowing to limit the number of retransmissions or to
prioritize user messages for more efficient send buffer usage.


Document Quality:
The document is thought ready for publication. Note the socket API
information is traditionally included as an informational section within
SCTP specs. This API is thought to be completely implemented in FreeBSD,
to be released in FreeBSD 10.1


Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
G Fairhurst (TSVWG Co-Chair)


Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Spencer Dawkins (TSV 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 was reviewed against related documents and is thought ready
to proceed.


(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? If so, describe the review that took
place.
No


(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.
No


(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? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
None are known


(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?
A WGLC was made in TSVWG, to end July 21st, 2014, with 5 comments. All
were supportive of publishing a spec. on this topic. The update to the
revised ID was discussed in TSVWG after the WGLC.
(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


(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.
None


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None


(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? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
OK


(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.
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).
This document requires no actions from 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.
None


(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.
None--
Prof Gorry Fairhurst, School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland,
No SC013683.
Back