An extension to RELOAD to support Direct Response Routing
(draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-07)
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Proposed Standard
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
The document has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy
enough community interest to be considered valuable. It defines extensions to
draft-ietf-p2psip-base, which also has an intended status of Proposed Standard.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
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:
RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive routing for routing messages. An optional
extesion that can be used to provide shorter routes for responses (reducing the
overhead on intermediate nodes) consists in supporting a direct response
routing mode. This defines the required extension as well as describes
potential use cases where it can be used.
Working Group Summary:
The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for
several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing
special worth noting.
Document Quality:
The document was thoroughly reviewed by Marc Petit-Huguenin and Carlos J.
Bernardos.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Carlos J. Bernardos
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Gonzalo Camarillo
(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 has personally done a thorough review of the document.
Some changes (mainly editorial) were requested to the authors and included in
the last revision of the draft. The Document Shepherd believes the document is
ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these
reviews.
(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.
(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 Document Shepherd has no such concerns.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
(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?
There is WG consensus 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.
There are no nits. The automatic nits detection tool detects 2 instances of
lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses, but I could not find them, so
I guess it is a detection mistake.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document meets the review criteria.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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).
The document defines a new RELOAD Forwarding Option type. The IANA registry is
defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base], Forwarding Option Registry.
(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 the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No formal language segments exist.