Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08

(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?

INFORMATIONAL. This is appropriate because it doesn't provides background information without specifying bits on the wire or procedures.

(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:

   Connecting an enterprise site to multiple ISPs using provider-
   assigned addresses is difficult without the use of some form of
   Network Address Translation (NAT).  Much has been written on this
   topic over the last 10 to 15 years, but it still remains a problem
   without a clearly defined or widely implemented solution.  Any
   multihoming solution without NAT requires hosts at the site to have
   addresses from each ISP and to select the egress ISP by selecting a
   source address for outgoing packets.  It also requires routers at the
   site to take into account those source addresses when forwarding
   packets out towards the ISPs.

   This document attempts to define a complete solution to this problem.
   It covers the behavior of routers to forward traffic taking into
   account source address, and it covers the behavior of host to select
   appropriate source addresses.  It also covers any possible role that
   routers might play in providing information to hosts to help them
   select appropriate source addresses.  In the process of exploring
   potential solutions, this documents also makes explicit requirements
   for how the solution would be expected to behave from the perspective
   of an enterprise site network administrator .

Working Group Summary:

There was significant discussion on the list and, as a result, the document went through six revisions. However, there was general consensus that the document should be published

Document Quality:

The document does not specify a protocol. However, it does describe a real operational problem.

The document motivated draft-ietf-6man-conditional-ras. This draft is with the IESG now and we will see demonstrations of that draft at the next hackathon.

Personnel:

Ron Bonica is document shepherd. Martin Vigoureux is 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 read this draft and draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras and convinced myself that draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras is implementable


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

No

(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.

I recommend  INTDIR and OPSDIR reviews during IETF Last Call.

(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.

None

(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?

I believe that a significant portion of the WG has read and understands the draft. All of the comments have been supportive and constructive.

(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.

The Nit checker complains about unused and obsolete references. The authors should fix this before IETF LC.

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

N/A

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

Yes, but many are unsused.

(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).

(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

N/A.

(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.

N/A
Back