Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-i2nsf-applicability-14
(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 document is requested for publication as an Informational RFC.
It is appropriate to be published as “informational RFC” because there is no protocol or extension specified by the draft.
(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:
This document describes the applicability of Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) to network-based security services in Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) environments, such as firewall, deep packet inspection, or attack mitigation engines.
Working Group Summary
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document?
This document is specifically written for I2NSF WG as one of the milestones specified by the I2NSF Charter. This document is not considered by any other WGs.
There was nothing exceptional in the WG processing for this document.
There was careful debate resulting in merging contents from other drafts into this document.
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 applicability document is not directly implementable, but it describes how I2NSF work are used in NFV environment, to achieve software defined security policy enforcement. At least two organizations are building a system based on the work of the working group and following this approach as an architecture. There has also been experimentation at IETF hackathons that is consistent with the work.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Linda Dunbar (email@example.com) is the document shepherd.
Roman Danyliw (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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.
This revision and the previous revision were reviewed by the document shepherd. All comments arising from the reviews 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?
No, The WG is small, but there were a good number of sound reviews. Document shepherd had suggested to include contents from two other drafts.
(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.
Not required, but the content of the document has been shared with Open Network User Group (ONUG) Software Defined Security Service 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No. This document is specifically noted as a deliverable in the WG charter.
(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.
The authors have been explicitly reminded of their responsibilities under BCP 78 and 79. By placing their names as authors of the document they have acknowledged those BCPs and agreed to comply with the terms of the IETF's IP policies.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No. There is no IPR disclosure being filed in reference to this document.
All authors of the document have confirmed that there is no IPR associated with the draft.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?
There has been review and supporting positions across the WG.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable. There is no MIB specified by the document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
The document only has informative references.
(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 interested community 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).
Not Applicable, as there is no IANA assignments needed by the document.
(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.
Not Applicable, as there is no IANA assignments needed by the document.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No such section, no such review.