Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13

draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-09.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 Informational RFC. 
	 It is the proper type of RFC since it provides an
	 architectural introductionary overview of the 
	 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).
	 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 provides an introductionary overview of the
	  the architecture of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
	  (LISP). The aim of this document is to ease the reading
	  of the complete LISP specifications.


Working Group Summary:

	  The document received a strong support from the WG from the
	  very beginning, when was an individual submission. An
	  intermin meeting has been organized in 2013 in order to make
	  progress on the document, which however was growing large.
	  Due to the lack of the activity of the original author, two
	  new editors have been appointed by the WG chairs. Since then,
	  the document has progressed rapidly and has been wrapped up
	  in few months, thanks to the large support and contribution
	  of the WG.


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? 

	  The document does not define any new protocol or mechanism, 
	  hence no special review is needed. 
	  Its informational content is well written and of a high standard. 


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? 

       	  Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>    
     
  	   	    	    
Who is the Responsible Area Director?

          Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>




(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
          understandable.
	  I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and
          publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
	  I checked the ID nits resulting in few minor warnings
          (output provided  on point 11). Authors have been notified and
          they will fix them 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
disclosures. 

	  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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

      idnits 2.13.01 

      tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-09.txt:
         Attempted to download draft-mathy-lisp-dht state...
	 Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.
	 Attempted to download rfc6936 state...
   	 Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.

      Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
       http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
       ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

		No issues found here.

       Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
       ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

		No issues found here.

       Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

		** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     		being 6 characters in excess of 72.

		    tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-09.txt:
		   tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-09.txt(287): Line is too long: the offending characters are 'ontrol'
		   tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-09.txt(288): Line is too long: the offending characters are 'lane'
		   tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-09.txt(294): Line is too long: the offending characters are 'ata'
		   tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-09.txt(295): Line is too long: the offending characters are 'lane'


  	Miscellaneous warnings:
  	----------------------------------------------------------------------------

		== The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
     	      	       2119 boilerplate text.

        	-- The document date (November 12, 2014) is 47 days in the past.  Is this
             	       intentional?


  	Checking references for intended status: Informational
  	----------------------------------------------------------------------------

		== Unused Reference: 'DFZ' is defined on line 1063, but no explicit
     	       	      reference was found in the text

  		== Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
     	      	      draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06

  		-- No information found for draft-mathy-lisp-dht - is the name correct?


     	Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

     	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
5226).

	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
	  performed.
Back