Shepherd writeup

ISE comments ...

This draft was in the IETF stream, and reached its consensus ballot
(DataTracker still has an IESG Status for it), then it was passed
across to the Independent Stream.  At that point it had received
a lot of reviews.

This draft was reviewed for me by Senthil Sivakumar, who suggested
some changes; its principal author has made those changes in response 
to that feedback.

This draft has no IANA Considerations.

- - - - - - -

(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?


(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

   This document discusses issues induced by the change of the Dual-
   Stack Lite (DS-Lite) Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4) IPv6 address and
   sketches a set of recommendations to solve those issues.

Working Group Summary


Document Quality

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


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

Mohamed Boucadair is the document shepherd. Terry Manderson 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 

I thoroughly reviewed the document and, as a co-author, I integrated the 
detailed comments raised so far. 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? 

I have no concern with the latest version of the document.

(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 


(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.

I have no particular concern with this document.

(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, Mohamed Boucadair and Suresh Vinapamula, did confirm 
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.


(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.) 


(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 thorough.

All received comments were addressed. This document is ID nits clean.

(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 apply to this document. 

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


(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?


(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. 


(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.


(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.