(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?
Proposed Standard.
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction
of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are
deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
This document defines Extended Sequence number TLV to protect Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) PDUs from replay attacks.
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 rough?
There was initial resistance by some members of the WG with regard to the need
for the new mechanism. Consensus over the need was achieved, while a technical
objection remained over the inclusion of the extended sequence number TLV in LSP
PDUs as they already contain a sequence number. The new sequence number TLV was
removed from the LSP which dealt with the technical objection.
Document Quality:
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?
No known implementations currently exist. One vendor has expressed interest in
implementing the mechanism for use in DC/TRILL deployments.
Les Ginsberg did multiple in-depth reviews of the document with comments which
were incorporated, and is acknowledged in the document.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
DS: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
AD: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
(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.
Document was reviewed by the Document Shepherd multiple times, including a final
pass for the writeup.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
No.
(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.
None.
(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?
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
(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?
Good consensus by the active members 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.)
No.
(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.
There are a couple unused references that presumably can be removed by the
editor.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(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?
No.
(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.
No.
(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.
No.
(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 documents allocation of a single code-point for the newly introduced TLV is
correct. The code-point needs to be allocated.
(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.
N/A.
(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.
N/A.