Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-03

Writeup for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01

    (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?

A: 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.

Key to the extensibility of the Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) protocol has been the handling of unsupported and/or
invalid Type/Length/Value (TLV) tuples.  Although there are explicit
statements in existing specifications, deployment experience has
shown that there are inconsistencies in the behavior when a TLV which
is disallowed in a particular Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is received.

This document discusses such cases and makes the correct behavior
explicit in order to insure that interoperability is maximized.

    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?

The document was well received.

    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, YANG
    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?

Most implementations already follow what this document specifies. The
implementations which do not must be updated.

    Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Christian Hopps
Responsible 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
        IESG.

I have reviewed this document and it is ready for publication.

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

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.

    (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?

Strong consensus.

    (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.

None.

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
         such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

There is a normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3563, which was a
cooperative agreement with ISO establishing the IANA code point registry.

    (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.

This document updates RFC3563, RFC5305, RFC6232, and RFC6233.

    (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
         8126).

This document corrects an mistake with RFC6232 and the IANA registry
for the Purge Originator Identification TLV, fixing the IANA registry.

    (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.

Nothing new.

    (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, YANG modules,
         etc.

Ran the standard nits, clean other than downref.

    (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
         with any of the recommended validation tools
         (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
         formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
         what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
         YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
         (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

No YANG module.
Back