(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?
The Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'.
This is an approprtate status as the mechanism defined in this documnet should
The type of RFC is properly indicated 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:
This document describes an additional mechanism to IS-IS Graceful restart
functionality (RFC 5306) so that planned restart by operator can happen with the support
of the neighboring nodes.
Working Group Summary
There is no much working group discussion on the enhancement presented in the bis
document. But, the draft has been presented in the LSR WG meeting(s).
The draft adoption and progress has received good support from the WG.
No major concerns have been raised. The draft is ready for publication
Few review comments discussed in the list for this write have been fully addressed by authors.
The draft has yet to go through routing directorate review.
Proposed enhancements have been proto typed/implemented by 1
Uma Chunduri is the Document Shepherd.
Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.
(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.
The draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd.
Comments and review feedback has been discussed in the LSR mailing list and duly addressed.
(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 place.
(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.
(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. Every author has confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes. The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG list about IPR
in the LC process. There haven't been any concerns raised on the list.
(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?
The draft adoption and progress had received reasonable support from the WG.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.
There are still some editorial comments that need to be addressed.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
Warning about ISO10859 has to be ignored (tool issue).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
For Yang updates one of the co-chair's response:
"I have been working with an IS-IS developer who has worked on our native YANG
models and we are considering a separate draft which augments the operational
state for IS-IS adjacencies to include more information".
(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?
(15) Are there downward normative 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.
This document obsoletes RFC 5306 - "Restart Signaling for IS-IS"
(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).
(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.