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) The document is being presented as a Proposed Standard. Current marking on
the document reads "Standards Track".
(2)
Technical Summary
This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol that enables
the reporting and control of Multi-Hop Forwarding by DLEP capable
modems.
Working Group Summary
The Working Group process proceeded without any issues. The authors took most
of the points raised on the mailing list and incorporated them into the
document. The document reached last call without controversy.
Document Quality
The document is well written. To the shepherd's knowledge, there are no
implementations of the specification, however, vendors plan to implement. Are
there existing implementations of the protocol?
Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Stan Ratliff. The responsible Area Director is
Alvaro Retana.
(3) The document shepherd has reviewed the document, and has found no issues
with proceeding to publication.
(4) The document has been reviewed at a sufficient technical depth, and is
ready for publication.
(5) No further reviews are needed.
(6) The shepherd has no concerns or issues for the responsible AD. The WG
consensus behind this document is solid.
(7) Yes, each author has confirmed that no IPR exists.
(8) No IPR has been filed against this document.
(9) The WG as a whole understands the document, and agrees that it should be
published.
(10) No appeals have been threatened.
(11) No nits were found.
(12) The document does not reference a MIB, or media types. No additional
reviews are required.
(13) All references are defined as either normative or informative.
(14) All normative references are already published RFCs.
(15) There are no downward references.
(16) This document will not change the status of any existing RFC.
(17) All IANA information has been properly addressed in the document, and this
information is completely consistent with the rest of the document.
(18) The 'Extension Type Value' registry would require expert review. Experts
were identified when the registry was created.
(19) No XML, BNF, or MIB text appears in the document.