Shepherd writeup

(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?

        Publication as experimental is requested. This is indicated in the title
        page header.

        The document specifies a multi-topology extension to RFC7181 (OLSRv2), for
        which a stable specification is required for gaining operational experience
        prior to advancing onto standards track. The document contains a section
        "Motivation and Experimentation" indicating which experiments this
        specification, particularly, is intended to facilitate.

(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:
        This specification describes an extension to the Optimized Link State
        Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) to support multiple routing
        topologies, while retaining interoperability with OLSRv2 routers that
        do not implement this extension.

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?

        There were no particular points of contention in the WG process, and the
        consensus behind publication of this document as an Experimental RFC
        appears solid.

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 two experimental implementations of the specification.
        There have been good discussions of the document among the WG participants,
        in general (reflected in the acknowledgements section).
        There have been no specific MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews

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

        The Document Shepherd is Ulrich Herberg.
        The Responsible Area Director is Adrian Farrel.

(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 document shepherd has reviewed this document, both as part of the
        WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request.
        The document shepherd believes that this version of the document is
        ready for publication.

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

        The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or
        breadth of the reviews of this document.

(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.

        This document does not need reviews beyond those normally done during
        AD and IESG processing.

(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 has no specific concerns with this document.

(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?

        Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring

(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, referencing this document.

(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 WG consensus behind this document appears solid. Several reviews
        have been made, and it has been discussed on the list and at WG meetings
        since IETF87.

(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.)

        No appeals have been threatened.
        No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks 
are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

        IDNIT returns no errors and no warnings.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as 
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

        This document does not require any of these reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or 

        All references have 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?

        All normative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

        All informative references are to already published RFC at the same,
        or on a higher, maturity level.

(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 are no downward references.

(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 does not change the status if any existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, 
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

        The document shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section, which
        is both consistent with the body of the document, and straight-forward in
         that for each registry modified, the document provides "replacement tables"
        for how the registry shall look after being updated by this document.

Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the 
appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

        This is confirmed.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

        All 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 

        This document does not create any new IANA registries.

(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.

        This document does not create any new IANA registries.
        This specification adds one new Message TLV, MPR_TYPES, allocated as a new
        Type Extension to an existing Message TLV from RFC7181. The relevant registry
        is established by Table 11 of [RFC7181]. This specification also modifies the 
        Value field of an existing Message TLV, MPR_WILLING, established in Table 11 
        of [RFC7181].
        This specification provides, in Table 2, how the registry will look after
        these allocations and modifications have been made

        This specification updates the description of the IANA allocation for the
        GATEWAY Address Block TLV Type, established in Table 16 of 

        This specification provides, in Table 3, how the registry will look after
        these allocations and modifications have been made

        This specification makes additional allocations for "administrative assignment" of 
        metrics types from the LINK_METRIC Address Block TLV Type registry, 
        established by Table 13 of [RFC7181].
        This specification provides, in Table 4, how the registry will look after
        these allocations and modifications have been made

(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.

        No formal language is contained in the document.