RFC 4858 based (form shortened)
Note: Update of shepherd's report expected
Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alia Atlas:
(1) type of RFC: Proposed standard or BCP
Note the WG was fine with BCP, Proposed Standard or BCP. It is specifying AS Reservation.
If BCP, it should Updates RFC1930. If informational, it should refer to
(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 reserves two Autonomous System numbers (ASNs) at the
end of the 16 bit and 32 bit ranges, described in this document as
"Last ASNs" and provides guidance to implementers and operators on
Working Group Summary
WG's only discussion was on whether this was BCP or Proposed standard.
The result was "What-ever works" as it has both suggestions to
implementors and operators.
Implementations at Microsoft, Cisco and Juniper adapted this range.
No implementation report exists.
(3) Review of document:
This document has no nits and good English in the text.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. List discussions include operations people (Such as Randy Bush)
(5) Reviews needed:
1) AD review - should this be BCP or Proposed Standard
2) IANA review
"We have one more action to add to the IANA Considerations section: the recently-approved document RFC-housley-number-registries-04 has just created a new registry called "Special-Purpose AS Numbers," where this document is a reference for value 4294967295. This document should instruct us to update that reference and, if appropriate, tell us to add it as a reference for any other relevant registrations in that registry."
Version -03: has the changes to respond to this IANA review. Please note AD will need to decide BCP or Information. WG is Ok with either one.
3) OPS-DIR - is this
(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?
IDR/Grow share the concerns with AS allocations. We are taking a pragmatic view regarding who process these drafts by doing cross reviews, talking between Chairs,
and just getting the work done.
(7) IPR Disclosures: IPR query out to Authors for final version. This shepherds report will be updated once this has been received.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
Consensus appears to reflect interested parties. However, this draft simply fixes
something missed in a widely discuss private-as draft so it is most likely people are
not commenting on the administrative information.
(Note: The administrative or operation impact implies a BCP).
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? Everyone wants the draft. The only question is BCP or Proposed standard.
(11)Nits - no nits, no edits needed
(12) Reviews: Early reviews for IANA, OPS-DIR, Routing AD, and Routing Directorate requested.
(13)/(14)/(150 Normative/Informative: Seem to be in the correct place, but in the
IANA review we will check their viewpoint. No downward normative references (RFC3967)
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? No status change for RFCs, and Abstract is does not contain RFC references.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
The IANA section is being asked to early review. No changes need to be made
for this draft at IANA, but it links to a Last AS allocaiton.
(18) No new IANA registries
(19) No XML, BNF, RBNF or other thigns to review