Shepherd writeup

 (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?

This RFC will be Informational.  It is Informational, because it simply outlines requirements for the solutions the working group is working to define in subsequent RFCs.  Per RFC 2026, it's use is for the general information of the working group and Internet Community relative to the work in CDNI.  The designation has been specified in the title page header.
(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:

Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) are frequently used for content delivery.  As a result of significant growth in content delivered over IP networks, existing CDN providers are scaling up their infrastructure.  Many Network Service Providers and Enterprise Service Providers are also deploying their own CDNs.  To deliver contents from the Content Service Protect (CSP) to end users, the contents may traverse across multiple CDNs.  This creates a need for interconnecting (previously) standalone CDNs so that they can collectively act as a single delivery platform from the CSP to the end users. 

The goal of the present document is to outline the requirements for the solution and interfaces to be specified by the CDNI working group.

Working Group Summary:

The only major controversy was regarding when the requirements draft should be completed.  Some argued the requirements draft should be the last document completed in the working group, so that any requirements "discovered" during the development of other RFCs could be added later.  Other's argued that we should finish this and publish it, so we can reference it in solutions drafts, do not have scope creep and stray far from the original consensus of the working group.  The latter won out.

Document Quality:

Besides incremental reviews and revisions through working group discussions, both of the chairs did a thorough review of the draft during WGLC.  These reviews resulted in a number of revisions.  This requirements draft is being referenced frequently and leveraged for the CDNI solutions drafts.


Daryl Malas is the Document Shepherd.  The Area Director sponsor for this working group is Spencer Dawkins.

(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 did a full editorial and contextual review of this draft, which resulted in a couple draft revisions prior to this write-up.

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


(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.


(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.

I have no concerns with this document.

(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?


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

Yes, ID#2124 was submitted by Cisco and reviewed during the working group session at IETF 87.  There were no concerns brought forward from the working group participants.  In addition, the mailing list was notified of the IPR disclosure submission.

(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 very solid consensus.  During a "hum" request for any concerns to go WGLC with the draft, there were none opposed.  In addition, there have been notifications on the mailing list without any feedback opposing progression of the draft.

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see


No issues found here.

Checking nits according to


No issues found here.

Checking nits according to :


No issues found here.

Miscellaneous warnings:


-- The document date (Sept 10, 2013) is 283 days in the past.  Is this intentional?

[DM] I'm not entirely sure why this error came up.

Checking references for intended status: Informational


== Missing Reference: 'MED' is mentioned on line 920, but not defined 'SEC-4  [MED] The CDNI solution should be able to ensure that the…'

== Missing Reference: 'HIGH' is mentioned on line 909, but not defined 'SEC-2  [HIGH] The CDNI solution shall provide sufficient protecti…'

== Missing Reference: 'LOW' is mentioned on line 929, but not defined 'SEC-5  [LOW] The CDNI solution may provide a mechanism allowing a...'

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

Shepherd notes: All RFC 2119 text will be removed, or essentially "lower-cased".  The purpose of this draft is to define requirements, but they are not normative.  They are simply to indicate the specific importance of criterion in the solutions.  The 'MED', 'HIGH' and 'LOW' criteria is intended to help the working group prioritize the requirements.

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


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


(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?


(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.


(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.


(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.


(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 issues or concerns.