As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. (format date 2/24/2012)
IPR check, Shepherd final check, Alvaro check on RTG-DIR
ETA: 1 week
(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?
Why: This provide recommendation to the companies/individuals
implementing ADD-Paths so this network operators have the
tools they need for this 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:
Add-Paths is a BGP enhancement that allows a BGP router to advertise
multiple distinct paths for the same prefix/NLRI. This provides a
number of potential benefits, including reduced routing churn, faster
convergence and better load sharing.
This document provides recommendations to implementers of Add-Paths
so that network operators have the tools needed to address their
specific applications and to manage the scalability impact of Add-
Paths. A router implementing Add-Paths may learn many paths for a
prefix and must decide which of these to advertise to peers. This
document analyses different algorithms for making this selection and
provides recommendations based on the target application.
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
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?
AD: Alvaro Retana
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
[final review goes here]
RTG-DIR QA review: Stewart Bryant
(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
What's not ready:
1) IPR check
2) nits check - problem see below
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
1) lengthy RTG-DIR review (Stewart Bryant)
revision done, and WG LC to confirm resolution of RTG-DIR comments:
2) shepherd's review of final document after fix nits:
(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
(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
RTG-DIR review had significant issues.
AD will be asked to do a pre-review of the document prior to the
WG Chair submitting it.
(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.
Waiting on authors IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
WG consensus was good, but the 2nd call to valid RTG-DIR changes
got little input.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
Broken NITS comments:
== There are 5 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed
Warnings: We need authors to resubmit daft with a few fixes and
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year-
== Missing Reference: 'Basu-ibgp-osc' is mentioned on line 544, but not
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-idr-add-paths has been published as RFC
== Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
(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?
All normative references are RFCs.
Most informative references are heading toward RFC.
[BEST-EXT] Marques, P., Fernando, R., Chen, E., Mohapatra, P.,
Gredler, H., "Advertisement of the best external
route in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-best-external-05.txt,
Jan 3, 2012.
(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.