Shepherd writeup

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?

   This is the document shepherd writeup for ‘draft-ietf-intarea-gue’.
   This document is offered for publication as a Proposed Standard
   RFC. The document specifies a protocol specification that needs to
   be honored by interoperable implementations; hence the standards
   track designation.

(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

   This specification describes Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE), which
   is a scheme for using UDP to encapsulate packets of different IP
   protocols for transport across layer 3 networks. By encapsulating
   packets in UDP, specialized capabilities in networking hardware for
   efficient handling of UDP packets can be leveraged. GUE specifies
   basic encapsulation methods upon which higher level constructs, such
   as tunnels and overlay networks for network virtualization, can be
   constructed. GUE is extensible by allowing optional data fields as
   part of the encapsulation, and is generic in that it can encapsulate
   packets of various IP protocols.

Working Group Summary

   The first version of the document as an approved working group item
   was posted to the intarea list on 10/31/2016. Prior to its acceptance as
   an intarea wg item, several version of the document were discussed in
   the nvo3 working group. However, the decision was made to move the
   document from nvo3 over to intarea.

   In terms of intarea working group consensus, a second document
   ‘draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp’ was seeking to specify a raw IP-in-UDP
   encapsulation format that was identical to the “direct encapsulation”
   format specified in this document. Working group consensus favored
   moving forward with a single document (GUE) rather than having
   two documents covering the same encapsulation format.

Document Quality

   The protocol is implemented in linux as of kernel version 3.18 and later.
   A thorough review was contributed by Bob Briscoe on both the intarea
   and nvo lists on 8/13/2016 which resulted in both a major revision to the
   document and the impetus to move the work from nvo3 to intarea. Also,
   on 6/20/2016 Adrian Farrell posted RTG Directorate QA review comments
   to the nvo3 list, which were discussed in several iterations with the authors.
   To date, no MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews have been


   Document Shepherd is Fred Templin.
   Responsible Area Director is Suresh Krishnan.

(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 performed a thorough review of
   ‘draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05’ and posted review comments to the list
   on 8/24/2018. Review comments and list discussion resulted in
   publication of -06 on 8/31/2018. The document shepherd re-reviewed
   the -06 on 12/19/2018 and approved the current version with changes
   to be published in a -07. The -07 will include the following changes:

      1) Clean up references: idnits showed several obsoleted references
         (along with their replacement RFC numbers), several citations for
         which the references are missing, and several references that were
         never cited. Also, two downrefs that simply need to be moved from
         the normative to informative section.

      2) In sections 3.2.1 and 3.6, unnecessary MUST/MUST NOTs are
         to be removed, as agreed by the document author.

      3) Appendix A to be listed as “non normative” as was done for
        Appendix B.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

   The document shepherd believes that the reviews that have been
   conducted both on and off list since the document was brought in
   as an intarea wg item have sufficiently covered both depth and

(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.

   Adrian Farrell contributed a RTG Area QA review on the nvo3 list
   on 6/20/2018. The review comments were addressed on the list.

(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.


(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.

   An IPR disclosure was filed on June 17, 2016:

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

   Yes. IPR disclosure #2809 was first cited on the nvo3 list on
   June 20, 2016:

   Adrian Farrell and Tom Herbert discussed the IPR, and a third party
   disclosure for other UDP encapsulation approaches was discussed.
   The terms of the IPR allow for use of the technology according to
   the published standard.

(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?

   Several individuals have posted strong concurrence with the document
   on the list, but it is the document shepherd’s belief that the WG as
   a whole understands and agrees with the 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.)

   Summary to be sent to Responsible Area Director. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

   ID nits identified several reference and citation issues (see 3
   above) which will be resolved in a -07 (to be submitted).

(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?

   Yes, except for those flagged in idnits.

(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.

   Two downward references appear in the -06; these will be
   resolved in the (to be published) -07.

(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).

   The IANA considerations section of this document cites the UDP
   port number 6080 as already assigned for GUE by IANA; hence,
   no new UDP port number assignments are necessary. The document
   calls for the establishment of two new IANA registries for “GUE
   Variant Number” and “Control Types”. Initial values for the
   registries are clearly defined, and procedures for future assignment
   of new values are clearly articulated.

(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.

   This document requests two new IANA registries known as
   “GUE Variant Number” and “(GUE) Control Types”. When
   identifying an IANA Expert for these new registries, the IESG
   should select an individual with general familiarity with Internet
   Protocol registries in general and preferably with tunneling protocol
   registries specifically.

(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.

   Document is currently written in nroff markup language. Conversion
   from nroff to XML in progress.