Shepherd writeup
rfc8126-20

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

>>>>	BCP. Yes.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
  or introduction.

>>>>	This document is an update to RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
>>>>	Considerations Section in RFCs. This is version 3.

 Working Group Summary

  Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
  it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
  about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
  document?

>>>>	This is unrelated to any specific WG or RG -- it is mostly about interactions
	with IANA. It has been thoroughly discussed within IANA based on their
	experiences.

>>>>	The document also had a few comments on the ietf@ietf.org list.

 Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
  review, on what date was the request posted?

>>>>	Since RFC 2434 was published, tens of thousands Internet-Drafts 
	have been posted with IANA Considerations sections, and thousands of
	RFCs have been published based on those IANA Considerations sections.

	Major reviews were received from John Klensin and Mark Nottingham, as
	well as the document shepherd.

 Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

>>>>	Document Shepherd: Tony Hansen
	Responsible Area Director: Brian Haberman

(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 performed a thorough review of the document. Only
	minor items were found, that were then fed back to the authors.

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

>>>>	The IANA reviews were thorough.

	We expect further community reviews to occur during IETF Last Call.

	There needs to be an explicit request for review from the IRTF chair
	and the RFC Independent Stream Editor.

(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.

>>>>	This document also needs to be reviewed by the IRTF chair and the 
	RFC Independent Stream Editor. We expect this to happen during IETF 
	Last Call.

(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 interested community 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. In addition, the Document Shepherd feels that there is no 
	BCP 78 or 79 issues.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

>>>>	None

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it? 

>>>>	There is solid consensus within IANA behind this document.

(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.

>>>>	IDnits points at "potential reference issues" that do not need
	to be fixed. All such reference "issues" are used in examples
	that point at specific RFC text and not at the protocols being
	discussed within those RFCs.

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

>>>>	N/A

(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?

>>>>	None

(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. 

>>>>	None

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

>>>>	This document updates RFC 5226 / BCP 26.
	These documents are listed in the title page header.
	The fact that RFC 5226 is being obsoleted is discussed in the
	abstract, but not in the introduction. (The authors do not feel
	that RFC 5226 does not need to be discussed in the introduction.)

(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 is all about the IANA Considerations section and
	does not have (nor need) its own separate IANA Considerations section.

(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 to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

>>>>	N/A
Back