Shepherd writeup
rfc7653-04

Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated 6th March 2015.

draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-02 write-up

(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. This document expands on the DHCPv6 Leasequery
   protocol, and allows for active transfer of real-time DHCPv6 binding
   information data via TCP.  This document also extends the DHCPv6 Bulk 
   Leasequery by adding new options and updates the DHCPv6 Bulk 
   Leasequery. The intended type is indicated in the document 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 enables an entity not directly involved in DHCPv6 
  client - server transactions to keep current with the state of the
  DHCPv6 lease state information in real-time.

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? 

  This document was called draft-raghuvanshi-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery 
  prior to its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of 
  adoption and none against), so this document was adopted in December 
  2013. There was interest in this work posts since its adoption. 
  There was never any opposition for this work.
  
  This document went through a relevant short document development
  period (2 months for individual document period, 4 month for WG document 
  period). Its maturity took advantages from its twin-document - 
  "Active DHCPv4 Lease Query" draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery, 
  which firstly submitted in early 2010.

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? 

  I'm not aware of any existing implementations, but the authors claimed
  they have customers using DHCPv4 active leasequery. It is reasonable to
  assume these customers would require DHCPv6 active leasequery as long 
  as their network extend to IPv6. No external requirements are needed 
  as this work is purely DHCPv6 extension. There was a few reviews by
  DHC WG members. This document has requested publication in mid of 2014,
  and received a AD review from Ted Lemon. The authors updated the 
  document in March 2015 to address the comments from AD review.


Personnel:

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

  Sheng Jiang is the document shepherd.
  Brian Haberman is the responsible AD.
  
(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 thoroughly reviewed this document  (and had other minor
  comments in between):
  
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg15379.html
  
  The issues raised in my last review were promptly addressed by authors
  in -01 version along with the comments from other DHC WG members. This 
  document is ready for publication in my opinion.
 
  I also reviewed the latest changes from 01 to 02 in March 2015. It looks fine 
  for me.
  
(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.

  No. This document has been carefully reviewed by the DHC WG.
  
(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.

  There are no outstanding issues.

(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. The authors, Dushyant Raghuvanshi, Kim Kinnear and Deepak Kukrety 
  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.
  
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  Yes, an IPR disclosure (http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2210/) been filed
  that references this document. The IPR declaration was submitted early on 
  but the WG did not explicitly discuss the ipr at any time (wglc or 
  otherwise) to my knowledge.
  
(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 was broad support for this document. It was reviewed by active WG 
  participants. All changes were mostly minor.
  
(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. There was unanimous support for this work and nobody raised any objections.
  
(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.

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

  No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar apply to this
  document.
  
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

  Yes.

(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?

  All normative references are published RFCs.
  
(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.

  This document updates RFC 5460. It is listed on the title page header, listed
  in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction

(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).

  IANA is asked to assign 3 option codes for OPTION_LQ_BASE_TIME, 
  OPTION_LQ_START_TIME, and OPTION_LQ_END_TIME; 2 status codes for DataMissing 
  CatchUpComplete; 1 message type for  ACTIVELEASEQUERY.
  
  All the necessary information is in the IANA considerations document. It is
  clear enough that the IANA will be able to implement it.
  
(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 such registry is requested in this document.
  
(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 such parts to the document.
Back