# Shepherd Review \- DPLPMTUD for UDP Options
## Document History
1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?
The document was only considered in TSVWG.
2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?
No.
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.)
No.
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 (where)?
Tom Jones reported an implementation in a fork of FreeBSD as the spec was being
developed in TSVWG, at IETF 101, London with prototype support for FreeBSD,
using RES/REQ exchanges, which at the time were proposed within UDP options.
The wire format has not changed since. It was also implemented in a scapy,
which was used as a test suite during development
([https://github.com/adventureloop/network-tests/tree/master/udpoptions](https://github.com/adventureloop/network-tests/tree/master/udpoptions)).
## 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.
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 are no parameters that need review.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation
tools](https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-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](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/)?
The document doesn't contain a 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.
There are no parameters that need validation.
## 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?
Yes, the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that
their](https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics)
[reviewers encounter](https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics). For
which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does
this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?
No common issues were identified or need to be addressed.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
([Best](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5)
[Current Practice](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5),
[Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1),
[Informational, Experimental or
Historic](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2))? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly
reflect this intent?
The document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard. This is the
proper type for this document since it is generally stable, has resolved known
design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant
community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be
considered valuable. The datatracker state correctly reflects this request.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP
79](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/)? 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 authors were emailed in December 2024, and both of them confirmed that
they're not aware of any 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.
Both authors have agreed to be listed as such.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
[idnits](https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/)
[tool](https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) is not enough; please review the
["Content Guidelines"
on](https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview)
[authors.ietf.org](https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview).
(Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings;
a rewrite is underway.)
Document looks good: [idnits
output](https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-13.txt&submitcheck=True&hidetext=True)
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
[IESG](https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/)
[Statement on Normative and Informative
References](https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/).
Both informative and normative references look correct to me.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are freely available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC
3967](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/) and
[BCP](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97)
[97](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97)) that are not already listed in
the [DOWNREF registry](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/)? If so,
list them.
The document doesn't have any downward references.
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?
This document references
[draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/),
which was recently submitted to the IESG for publication.
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.
The document doesn't change the status of any existing RFC.
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](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/)).
The document doesn't have any IANA considerations.
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.
No IANA registries are created.