[ https://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup-qa-style.html ]
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
Current as of Jun 13, 2018.
(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
Standards Track, indicated in the title page header. It's proper b/c it's
changing the operation of the protocol.
(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:
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 describes a mechanism to allow IS-IS routing to quickly and
accurately shift traffic away from either a point-to-point or multi-access LAN
interface during network maintenance or other operational events. This is
accomplished by signaling adjacent IS-IS neighbors with a higher reverse metric,
i.e., the metric towards the signaling IS-IS router.
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?
Nothing controversial occurred.
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?
There is vendor and operator interest in this technology. The document had a
good amount of review by the WG, changes were requested and incorporated by the
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd: Christian Hopps
AD: Alvaro Retana
(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
The document is ready. I have reviewed it supplied comments and they were
incorporated by the authors.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
(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
(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?
Naiming: Replied, Not Aware.
Shane Amante: Replied, Not Aware.
Mikael Abrahamsson: Replied, Not Aware.
(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?
Strong consensus by the experts in the 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.)
(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.
(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?
Yes; however, I believe that a newly added reference to WIP (spine-leaf) was
incorrectly added to Normative and will be moved to Informational.
(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).
I've reviewed the I.C. section and it's fine.
(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.