Shepherd writeup

draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

(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 draft is targeting publication as an Experimental RFC. 
	It is the proper type of RFC since it provides an
	alternative mapping system for the Locator/ID Separation 
	Protocol (LISP), whose RFCs have Experimental status.
	The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page header. 

(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:

	The document describes the LISP Delegated Database Tree
	(LISP-DDT), a distributed hierarchical mapping database.
	LISP-DDT is composed of servers (DDT nodes) organised as
	a hierarchical tree, based on EID namespace delegation.
	Every DDT node, from the root to the leafs, is 
	authoritative for a set of EID-prefixes. To each 
	EID-prefix is associated either a set of RLOCs or child
	DDT nodes to which more specific EID-prefixes are 
	delegated. Each LISP-DDT node can be queried using 
	Map-Request messages [RFC6830]. The node will reply 
	either with a Map-Reply message [RFC6830], carrying the 
	the set of RLOCs associated to the prefix, or with a 
	Map-Referral (Defined in this document), indicating the 
	DDT nodes that are authoritative for a more specific 
	EID-prefix covering the requested EID.

Working Group Summary:

	  The document received a strong support from the WG from the
	  very beginning, and actually the design of the system is the 
	  result of a strong collaboration among WG participant.
	  The version of the document that was approved during WG Last
          Call is -03. As a shepherd I required a few editorial changes 
	  to the document. This delayed de document since the main 
	  author did not have time anymore to updated the document.
	  (The document actually expired.)
	  A new author joined the team recently and after a couple 
	  of updates the document is ready to go further.

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? 

	 There are two independent and inter-operable implementations 
	 of the proposed hierarchical distributed database and lookup 	


Who is the Document Shepherd? 

       	  Luigi Iannone <>    
Who is the Responsible Area Director?

       	When the document past WG Last Call the responsible AD was
	Brian Haberman <>. At the time of this 
	writing the responsible AD is Deborah Brungard

(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. 

       	I reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and
	On the document that past the WG Last Call I had some editorial
	changes. Mainly moving the section defining the packet format from 
	appendix to a full section, and few other wording nits.
	This took a while as described in the WG Summary section of this 
 	write up.
        I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and
        publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
	I checked the ID nits (output provided  on point 11) resulting 
	in a couple of warnings concerning outdated references.  	
   	These can be fixed later on along with the modifications 
	(if any) required by the IESG review.

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

	  As the document shepherd I have no concerns.

(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 broader review is required for this document.

(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.

	  I have no specific concerns or issues to point out.

(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?

       	   All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure.

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

	  No IPR disclosures have been filed.   

(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? 

          There has been clear strong consensus behind this document, 
	  showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it.

(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.)

	  Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.


(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 thorough.

idnits 2.14.01 


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  -- The document date (May 31, 2016) is 9 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

	  No formal review is required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative? 

         Yes (a couple of fixes are needed to solve the ID nits but they do
         not change the core of normative and informative references).

(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 no normative references in unclear state.

(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.

	  There are no downward normative references.

(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 existing RFC's status will change due to the publication
	of this document.

(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

	The documents does not make any request to IANA.

(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. 

	No expert review is required.

(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. 

	  The document does not contain anything written in a formal
	  language, hence, no validation and/or check has been