> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
> (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?
This document normatively specifies the use of IP to provide DetNet data plane service.
> Is this type of RFC indicated 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
> 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.
This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data. No DetNet-specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows; instead, the existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to support flow identification and DetNet service delivery. Procedures and control information that is common to all DetNet data planes can be found in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.
> 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
There were many technical debates in the process of creating this draft, but all were resolved with a clear consensus. It took awhile to get there but there is nothing worth noting.
> Document Quality
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
The IPv4 and IPv6 protocols are used without modification. At this time there are no shipping implementations of DetNet per se.
> Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification?
Several major vendors have been core to the development of DetNet, including Cisco, Huawei, and Ericsson so it is assumed that they plan to implement it.
> 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?
The DetNet WG (including David Black, DetNet Technical Advisor) have made extensive reviews of the present drafts.
A dedicated Data Plane Design team have met informally, regularly, to review and progress the set of data plane drafts.
Preceding the WG decisions to use IP and MPLS for the DetNet Data Plane, an extensive review of candidate technologies was done by Jouni Korhonen and team (draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt).
> Who is the Document Shepherd?
> Who is the Responsible 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 have reread this document as it progressed as well as in its final form, and have personally contributed a number of suggestions, mostly grammatical details. All significant comments have been addressed. 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?
> (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 draft was reviewed in detail by David Black with respect to backwards compatibility with Diffserv. All issues were resolved.
> (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.
No concerns. The progress of this draft has been quite linear, and it is ready to be published.
Regarding the number of authors of this draft, this draft is one of a group that represents a substantial part of the output of the WG for a number of years. We realize that the author count is intended to be 5 or less however we have carefully reviewed the author counts of these drafts at the time of WG LC to validate the contributions, and we sincerely believe that it would not be fair to remove any of the listed authors.
> (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, authors/contributors know of none, see
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There were no IPR concerns raised during WG acceptance of the document, nor during the period of its development.
This is a link to the IPR call results:
> (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?
Very solid. The document (in the context of the full set of DetNet Data Plane drafts) is mature and has been discussed sufficiently among the broad DetNet WG audience.
> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarize 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
IDNits passes without errors.
There are idnits warnings regarding "outdated references" but this is because this is one of a set of drafts that refer to each other and will all be published together, so the RFC editor can fix this once all edits are final.
There is also a warning "Missing Reference: 'Network' is mentioned on line 174, but not defined" - however, what Idnits is finding is the text “[Network]” in the figure text (which is part of a diagram) and looking for a corresponding reference, which makes no sense, i.e. this is due to a shortcoming of idnits, not the draft.
> (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.
There is currently a downref for RFC 2475 but presumably that will be moved to Informative, or discussed here.
// No, N/A.
> (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).
N/A, no IANA requests.
> (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.
The only automated review was idnits.