Status: Proposed standard
Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alvaro Retano
(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 draft discusses some BGP features for ASN migration that, while
commonly used, are not formally part of the BGP4 protocol
specification and may be vendor-specific in exact implementation. It
is necessary to document these de facto standards to ensure that they
are properly supported in future BGP protocol work such as BGPSec.
Working Group Summary
There was no WG process to note. Good Working Group Consensus occurred during WG Review.
This is not a protocol, but configuration and implementation details being codified for
future implementers to be aware of, so operations of networks can continue. The
document outlines processes and procedures which are used today in networks,
most vendors implement a set of this document's features.
Document Shepherd-1: Chris Morrow (Grow)
Document Shepherd-2: Susan Hares (IDR)
AD: Alvaro Retano
(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
Susan Hares and Chris Morrow both read this document (a few times now) and believe the document is ready for publication. Folk in the working group seem to agree, and the partner document in IDR (draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03) is moving forward at this time as well.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not harbor any concerns about this document.
(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
We believe the parts of this document which require specialized review have been reviewed. That review was done by IDR folk during the working group work on that document as well.
(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?
Nothing to be concerned about with this revision.
(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
(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 WG consensus appears to be solid for this document.
(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.)
There are no threats at this time.
(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
NITS turned up the following:
" The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4271, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should."
- Alvaro suggests this can be updated in the next revision.
(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?
There are not normative references to unfinished documents.
(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.
Updates RFC4271 is marked on draft.
(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).
I reviewed the IANA considerations section in this document, there are no considerations for IANA here.
(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.