Shepherd writeup
rfc7149-09

(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?

   This document is being requested as Informational becuase it
   represents a description of architecture and other considerations.
   It is not something that can be directly implemented.
   This status is correctly noted on the title page.

(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

   Software-Defined Networking (SDN) has been one of the major buzz
   words of the networking industry for the past couple of years.  And
   yet, no clear definition of what SDN actually covers has been broadly
   admitted so far.  This document aims at contributing to the
   clarification of the SDN landscape by providing a perspective on
   requirements, issues and other considerations about SDN, as seen from
   within a service provider environment.

   It is not meant to endlessly discuss what SDN truly means, but rather
   to suggest a functional taxonomy of the techniques that can be used
   under a SDN umbrella and to elaborate on the various pending issues
   the combined activation of such techniques inevitably raises.  As
   such, a definition of SDN is only mentioned for the sake of
   clarification.

Working Group Summary

   This is an individual submission not the product of a working
   group.

   The authors have requested publication on the IETF stream with 
   AD sponsorship.

   The document was discussed within the SDNRG of the IRTF
   from where useful feedback was gathered. One of the chairs
   of the SDNRG and the chair of the IRTF have both confirmed
   that they are OK with progressing this as an individual 
   submission.

Document Quality

   This is an Informational I-D and not the subject of anything
   that can be directly implemented.

   This document has been reviewed by several individuals (refer 
   to the ACK section of the document).

   The sponsoring AD reviewed the document and gave a 
   number of comments that led to updates.

Personnel

   Adrian Farrel (Adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the Document 
   Shepherd and Responsible Area Director.

(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.

   I have reviewed the document and discussed my issues with the authors.
   This led to a new revision changing the tone of several points and 
   adding some additional material.

   I have also discussed the document with the IRTF chair and with the
   co-chairs of the SDNRG.

   It is my opinion that this document is ready for publication.

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

   Given the limited scope of this document, I have no concerns about 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? If so, describe the review that took 
place.

   No further reviews needed.
   
(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.

   As previously noted, this document was originally positioned in the 
   IRTF.  There seems to be no issue with moving the document onto 
   another stream.

   As observed in the Technical Summary, this document reflects the
   views of the authors speaking from within a network operator
   environment. That makes the IETF consensus process principally 
   about it being OK to publish the document, not about the content of
   the document although we anticipate that if there is a significant 
   concern about the content it will be raised during IETF last call.

(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, the authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR.

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

   No.

(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?

   Not applicable. This document is not a product of an existing WG.  

(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 has no complaints about this document.

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

   No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar review applies to
   this document. 

(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?

   No issues.

(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 downrefs.

(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.

   No impact on other RFCs.

(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 does not require any action 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.

   Not applicable.

(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.

   Not applicable.
Back