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?

     The intended status is “Proposed Standard”. The title page header indicates Standards Track.
     As this document replaces and obsoletes RFC6779, which is a Proposed Standard, this is the
     appropriate status for the document.

(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 document revises, extends, and replaces RFC 6779, which defined
  the NHDP (RFC 6130) related portion of the Management Information Base
  (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  This revision to RFC 6779 is necessitated by the update to RFC 6130 specified in RFC 7466.

Working Group Summary:

   The updates made to RFC 6130 were, initially, described in draft-dearlove-manet-nhdp-optimization,
   which became draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization  and then RFC 7466. On advice from the RTG AD,
   rather than have that draft/RFC attempt to update RF6779, it was decided to issue an RFC6779bis, this

   While there were some discussions in the WG process regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization,
   the resulting changes to the NHDP-MIB did not give rise to any “roughness”.

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 is reported to be at least one implementation of NHDP-MIB that has been updated according to
     this specification.

     A MIB doctor review was undertaken of the draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib prior to publication as RFC6779,
     and further MIB doctor review of this draft has been provided, first on version -03, and then on version
     -05, confirming that all required changes have been made.

     This document has been reviewed by GEN-ART. All suggested changes have been made in this version
     of this document.

     This document has been reviewed by SEC-DIR, too late to be included in this version. However only one
     comment has been made, described as “a detail”. The document shepherd’s view is that this should not
     delay this document. (His personal view is that the proposed minor change is better not made, but even
     taking a contrary view, this is too minor to cause a delay, and can be handled at a later stage if needed.)



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

     The document shepherd is:

          Christopher Dearlove

     The responsible Area Director is:

          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.

     The document shepherd has reviewed the document, in particular the rfcdiff to RFC6779, and finds that
     the updates reflect that which is necessitated by RFC 7466.

     The document shepherd made some observations about earlier drafts that have been resolved.


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

     The document shepherd is satisfied that suitable reviews, and in sufficient detail, 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. 

     The document shepherd believes that no additional reviews are required or beneficial. (Of the indicated examples, a security review has been provided.)

(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 believes that there are no such concerns.

(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?



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.



(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?

     It is hard to get excited about an update to a MIB module, and there has not been much discussion in
     the WG on the topic of this MIB module in particular. However, as this update is imposed by the
     development and publication of RFC 7466, which has seen considerable discussion in the mailing list,
     the document shepherd has no concerns with 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.)



(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.


    idnits reports a mismatch between RFC2119 text and expected text. This is due to the addition of
   "NOT RECOMMENDED"  (which the document shepherd believes is correct) and use of the form
   [RFC2119] (possibly to prevent xml2rfc warning).

    idnits also reports three references included but not referenced. However these are referenced,
    but within the MIB, not by an XML <xref> tag.


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

     This document has had MIB Doctor, GEN-ART and SEC-DIR reviews, see above.

(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 references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

     There are no downrefs.


(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.

     Publication of this document will obsolete RFC6779
     This is indicated in the header, abstract and introduction - specifically, detailed in Section 1.1.


(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).

     This document does not create any registries, nor does it request any allocations from existing
     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 registries, nor does it request any allocations from existing
     IANA 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.

     The author (Ulrich Herberg) reports that suitable automated checks have been performed.