Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) The document is being submitted as a proposed standard, because it documents an extension of functionality for DLEP itself (RFC 8175). The document is marked "Standards Track".


Technical Summary

This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol that enables
 a modem to use DLEP messages to pause and resume data traffic coming
 from its peer router.

Working Group Summary

 The WG process was smooth, there are no issues or concerns arising from this document. 

Document Quality

  The document is clear and well-written. To the shpeherd's knowledge, there are no implementations of the document. However, vendors have indicated a plan to implement the document once published. The document does not reference a MIB, or specific Media Type. Therefore, no extpert reviews were necessary.

  The Document Shepherd is Stan Ratliff. The Responsible Area Director is Alvaro Retana.

(3) The Shepherd has reviewed the document; no issues were noticed.

(4) The Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews done.

(5) No expert reviews are needed from other groups or areas. The document describes an extension to the DLEP protocol. 

(6) The Shepherd has no concerns or issues with the document. 

(7) All IPR disclosures have been filed by all of the authors. No IPR exists.

(8) No IPR exists. 

(9) The WG consensus is strong, amongst the DLEP experts in the group. Some have been silent on the issue, as this technology does not coincide with their interests.    

(10) No appeals have been threatened, or even discussed.

(11) No nits were found. 

(12) The document does not reference MIBs, media types, or URIs. Therefore, no formal reviews of that type were required. 

(13) All references are defined as either normative or informative.

(14) All normative references are to documents already published as RFCs. 

(15) No downward references exist. 

(16) The document will not change the status of any existing document. 

(17) The Shepherd reviewed the IANA considerations, and found them to be consistent with both current IANA process, and with the document itself. No new registries are defined. 

(18) The DLEP Extensions Registry "Extension Type Values" requires expert review. The experts for that registry have already been communicated to IANA.

(19) No XML code, BNF rules, or MIB definitions exist in the document.