draft-ietf-lisp-iana-registry-03.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 document targets to follow standard track, hence aiming at the
initial level of "Proposed Standard".
I personally argued with the authors that usually documents
aiming at creating IANA registries are "informational".
Yet, as the authors rightfully pointed out, the document also
proposes the experimental packet format, for which standard
track looks more appropriate.
As a shepherd of the document I am fine keeping this
intended status. To be noted that the document passed the
WGLC with the such intended status. No concern was raised by the
WG members. As for the IETF process, it is up to the
IESG to assign the most appropriate status to this document.
(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 proposes to create two new registries, namely the
"LISP Packet Types" and the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type".
In the LISP architecture, there are a bunch of control messages
that are identified via an 4-bit "Type" field. While all of those
messages are defined in RFC6830 (the base LISP specifications), no
formal request to IANA to create a registry can be found in that
document. This document fixes the issue by formally asking the
creation of such registry.
Additionally, the document suggest to reserve one of these "Type"
values for experimental messages, that can be further identified
through an additional 12-bit "Sub-Type" field.
This would allow to experiment with new control messages before
asking for a new allocation, helping preserving the limited "Type"
space, while avoiding hindering LISP evolution.
Thus, the document defines the format of the experimental
control message, where the first 4-bits, identifying the
message as an actual experimental message, are used exactly like
any other LISP control message. These 4-bits are followed
by the 12-bits "Sub-Type" field, while the rest of the
message will depend on the specific experiment.
Working Group Summary:
The document has been welcome right away by the WG.
The proposed "LISP Packet Types" registry was indeed something
the WG felt as missing. Furthermore, the additional idea to reserve
one type of experimental use, with a sub-type extension, has been also
supported right away by 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?
There are several independent and inter-operable implementations
already using the requested initial content of the "LISP
Packet Types" registry. The "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type"
registry is provided for future use, but a few individual submissions
already propose their use.
Furthermore, LISPLab implementation (http://www.lisp-lab.org/)
uses the new Experimental message to implemented new LISP control
messages.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.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.
I reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and
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 downref as described later.
(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.
As the document shepherd I have no concerns.
(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 consensus behind this document,
showing that the WG as a whole understands and agrees 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 2.14.01 /var/www/.idnits
tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-02.txt:
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 :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (September 28, 2016) is 22 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 6830
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 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?
All references are identified as 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?
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 is one single downward normative reference toward RFC 6830
(see as well the idnits output above).
(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 document proposes to create two new registries, namely the
"LISP Packet Types" and the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type".
For the former, detailed specification of initial content is
provided in the document. For the latter, no initial content is
demanded, hence leaving the registry empty, as clearly stated
by the authors.
(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.
For the "LISP Experimental Message Sub-Type" registry the document
proposes to use a simple First-Come First-Served policy.
For the "LISP Packet Types" registry the document
proposes go through standard action.
(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.