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? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard
(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:
The MRT (RFC6396) record format is used to for archive routing information as
it changes over time. BGP is one of the routing protocols supported and MRT
needs updates when BGP gets certain new capabilities. The capability for BGP
to advisertise multiple paths has been added with RFC7911. This document adds
the required functionality to MRT enabling the format to store the new
information.
Working Group Summary:
There has been good consensus within the working group. The draft overall is
straight forward, and simple. The document is required to ensure that MRT can
continue to store BGP routing information that vendors are implementing and end
users are deploying.
The last call was quiet, but it was clear from the interested parties that the
document was ready for publication.
Document Quality:
The feature has been implemented in bird (http://bird.network.cz/) and is
waiting to be pulled into an official release. There are two software packages
for procesing the MRT data, RIPE NCC's bgpdump, and java-mrt
(https://github.com/tking/java-mrt). The document focuses on extending the
existing MRT standard, by adding new message subtypes.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Peter Schoenmaker
Responsible Area Director: Joel Jaeggli
(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 document shepherd has reviewed the document, along with following up with
the authors.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns because the document follows the existing MRT specification.
(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 particular review is required.
(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.
(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.
No.
(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?
The concensus is solid in the working group. It was not a particularly active
draft, and there was not much discussion. The working group consenus is strong
dispite this because it is a simple extension to an existing protocal, with
little impact on other work inside of GROW, or the IETF. The interested
parties did participate both in the working group and directly with the authors.
(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.
(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.
None.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
(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?
No.
(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.
No.
(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 needs to add new subtype codes for MRT. The codes are solely contained in
the IANA section.
(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.
N/A
(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.
N/A