(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?
Proposed Standard is appropriate as the document outlines an optional extension
to a proposed standard protocol (DLEP) and working code exists.
(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:
There exists a class of modems which would benefit from Dynamic Link
Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] support but do not present a single
Layer 2 network domain as required by DLEP. This document introduces
an optional extension to the core DLEP specification, allowing DLEP to
be used between routers and modems that operate in this way.
Working Group Summary:
There wasn’t anything of significant contention within the working
group regarding the document either in text or protocol operation.
Document Quality:
There is an existing implementation of the protocol. There is at least
one vender who plans or has used the specification. I’ve (Justin Dean)
have reviewed the document in detail and didn’t find any substantive
issues.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd? Justin Dean
Responsible Area Director? 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’ve done a through review of the document and identified various nits
and wordage issues. The most substantial issue regarded some confusion
in intent due to poor wording. I’ve verified with the authors that
rewording will fix the issue and no protocol functionality will need be
changed. The only other issue of note was identifying all protocol
specific key words and using the same text to refer to those objects
(specifically “Link Identifier”). These changes and issues are all
minor enough to be rolled into any future rev required by the IESG or
IETF last call.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No.
(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. The Document
Shepherd doesn’t have any issues or concerns with this document (excluding
those mentioned)
(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? There is solid WG consensus behind
this document.
(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. There was
one error: The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC8175]), which it
shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents
in question. And 3 warnings regarding references, 2 unused (due to being in the
abstract) and 1 obsoleted.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There is no formal review
required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? Yes. They just need to be moved out of the abstract.
(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. No.
(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. It won’t change the status but when optionally used it will update
RFC8175 which is listed as a normative reference.
(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 Shepherd suggested an edit to improve clarity regarding which
registries requested assignments were being made from. The current text (non
edited/updated) is sufficient for absolute correctness only lacks some in
clarity. The suggested edits were sent to the authors but the Shepherd
wouldn’t be bothered if they keep the current text.
(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. There are no new IANA
registries only assignment requests.
(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. None.