Shepherd writeup
rfc7042-05

This is the document shepherd writeup for:

IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters

draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis/

It was prepared May 6th 2013.

(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?

The status Requested for this document is BCP. This document obsoletes BCP 5342 (BCP 141).

(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:

Some IETF protocols make use of Ethernet frame formats and IEEE 802
parameters.  This document discusses some use of such parameters in
IETF protocols, specifies IANA considerations for assignment of
points under the IANA OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier),
provides some values for use in documentation, and obsoletes RFC
5342.

Working Group Summary:

As was the previous document, this version was prepared under the assumption that this would this would be AD sponsored. There is a not a logically good home for an IANA maintained registry of IETF assigned entries under the IANA OUI, for the previous RFC  the sponsoring AD was also  the IEEE liason.

Document Quality:

The document makes small but important changes to RFC 5342 (Repeated from the document) 

Add MAC addresses and IANA OUI-based protocol and other values for
use in documentation.

Eliminate any requirements for parallel unicast and multicast
assignment that are not requested. Such requirements had been
included in [RFC5342] on the theory they would make bookkeeping
easier for IANA but have proved to be problematic in practice.

The document has been reviewed by the previously shepherding AD.

Personnel:

Joel Jaeggli is the Shepherding AD and Author of the Shepherding report.

(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, read the document and offered constructive criticism, which was accepted. Feedback on the current registration of the IANA OUI was provided to IANA. The Shepherd and the authors belive the 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?

The shepherd believes that any concerns about the consesus necessary for BCP will be resolved in the IETF last call.

(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 IANA signoff will be an important part of the publication requested process. IANA review has already been solicited.

(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 is aware of no outstanding concerns other than the IETF last call.

(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?

The shepherd belives there are no IPR concerns to be addressed in the management of IANA registries.

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(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?

This Document is AD sponsored.

(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 appeals are anticipated.

(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.

No nits are present in the 01 draft.

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

No formal reviews of the above types are required. IANA review is important.

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

Normative and informative references are properly identified.

(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?

There are no such considerations.

(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.

There are no downrefs.

(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.

This document obsoletes RFC 5342 a BCP controlling the IANA OUI registry.

(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 whole document is essentially IANA considerations. 

(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 new IANA registries are created.

(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.

There are no formal language requirements.
Back