Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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 Informational, as indicated in both the document
   itself and the tracker. It is certainly not protocol, and therefore
   neither Standards Track nor Experimental are appropriate. It is also
   not changing any IETF procedure, so BCP is also out. Informational
   seems correct.

(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

   Several review teams ensure specific types of review are performed on
   Internet-Drafts as they progress towards becoming RFCs.  The tools
   used by these teams to assign and track reviews would benefit from
   tighter integration to the Datatracker.  This document discusses
   requirements for improving those tools without disrupting current
   work flows.

Working Group Summary

   Several of the current review teams have looked at this document
   including gen-art, secdir, and tsv-art. Some short discussion took
   place on dir-coord and tools-discuss; comments were addressed, either
   in discussion or in the document. There were no objections (and a few

Document Quality

   People seem satisfied with the document's quality. There have been
   some editorial comments on the tools-discuss list that have yet
   to be addressed, but no showstoppers. The shepherd has no concerns
   regarding consensus for the contents of this document.


   Pete Resnick <> is the shepherd.
   Jari Arkko is the responsible 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 shepherd gave the document a read through. Not being a particular
   expert on review teams, the document seems reasonable. The shepherd
   also read through the comments in the archive. Seems ready.

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

   Reviews seemed diligent. Brian Carpenter's comments at:


   still need to be addressed, but none is a showstopper.

(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.

   The directorate reviews that took place seem sufficient.

(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.

   The shepherd has no additional concerns or issues.

(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.

  Both authors have said that they have no IPR to disclose. Tero pointed
  out that he holds copyright for parts of the review tool code, but
  this doesn't directly impact the document itself. The shepherd agrees,
  though neither of us is a lawyer.

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

   No IPR disclosures have been made.

(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 small group of folks involved in review teams gave review
   and seem to support it.

(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 objections seen, let alone appeal threats.

(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

   The 2606 warning is bogus. The shepherd has no opinion on whether
   Appendix A needs <CODE BEGINS>/<CODE ENDS> around it.

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

   None applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

   All references are Informative, and that seems right.

(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 normative references.

(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 downward references.

(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 other RFCs impacted.

(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).

   No IANA actions, and that is appropriate.

(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.

   No IANA actions, and that is appropriate.

(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.

   No such checks, other than ID-Nits.