Shepherd writeup
rfc7074-03

(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?

Proposed Standard. Updates Standards Track documents. 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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the 
document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or 
introduction.

GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, and hierarchical switching 
within a technology. GMPLS routing and signaling use common values to indicate 
switching technology type. These values are carried in routing in the Switching 
Capability field, and in signaling in the Switching Type field. While the values used in 
these fields are the primary indicators of the technology and hierarchy level being 
controlled, the values are not consistently defined and used across the different 
technologies supported by GMPLS. This document is intended to resolve the 
inconsistent definition and use of the Switching Capability and Type fields by narrowly 
scoping the meaning and use of the fields. This document updates any document that 
uses the GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFC 3471, RFC 
4202, RFC 4203, and RFC 5307.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there 
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was 
particularly rough?

No. Good support by the WG.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of 
vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers 
that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in 
important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course 
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

This document updates the definitions for the Switching Type field to be consistent and 
deprecates three previously defined switching types. For existing implementations, the 
primary impact of this document is deprecating the use of PSC-2, 3 and 4. At the time 
of publication, there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make 
use of these values so there is no compatibility issues for current routing and signaling 
implementations.

Personnel:

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

Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Area Director.

(2) 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.

This document has been adequately reviewed.

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

No concerns.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

No concerns.

(6) 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.

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

No IPR.

(8) 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?

WG supports this document.

(9) 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.

(10) 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 issues.

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

Not applicable.

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

Yes.

(13) 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.

(14) 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.

(15) 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.

Yes, the RFCs are listed. Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307.

(16) 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).

IANA considerations section is clearly identified and appears appropriate.

(17) 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.

(18) 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.

Not applicable.
Back