(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Informational
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Matches the description in RFC 2026, section 4.2. It's explaining
a set of issues and providing pointers to mitigations.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?
Yes.
(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 details known operational issues with IP multicast
use on 802.11 (Wi-Fi) networks, and provides guidance on existing
deployment strategies and mitigations.
Working Group Summary:
There was WG consensus to publish this doc.
Lenny (as chair) wanted more WG feedback explicitly supporting the
advancement of this doc after WGLC, but noted that the doc has
received extensive feedback over the last few years.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/ts4W0_viXV-7OX0LKjAKjn_KGa0
Two independent drafts addressing the same problem space were
originally submitted by different sets of authors:
draft-mcbride-mboned-wifi-mcast-problem-statementdraft-perkins-intarea-multicast-ieee802
WG consensus during these early stages was to merge the drafts,
resulting in this doc.
The doc had consistently low controversy and high support.
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?
Joel Jaeggli made a significant early review of both docs that
resulted in many changes:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/04NLYfKGX86YzbpHt6FPKQf_1Xs
Jake Holland and Bill Atwood each did reasonably thorough reviews
on later versions of the doc, after merging.
Several others provided a number of mostly-minor technical comments
that were incorporated (list in Acknowledgements section).
Personnel:
Document shepherd: Jake Holland
Responsible AD: Erik Vyncke
(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.
Document was reviewed on-list by doc shepherd, comments were
addressed. Ready for publication, with a note that there are
informative references to I-Ds.
(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.
This doc covers IEEE technology as it relates to IP, and thus relies
on expertise from IEEE experts, as well as multicast operational
experience.
Some of the authors are participants in IEEE and a key goal of this
doc is sharing their operational experience and technical expertise.
(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 doc has several unusual references that probably should be
checked with the RFC editor for best practices with unusual
references.
(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.
Dorothy: (mboned 21 May 2019 22:37 UTC)
-https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/-EwzEsem0mDjX_qCmXWHWNgxAck
Warren: (mboned 22 April 2019 19:01 UTC)
-https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/o9kB-yINVqSn8SlYJlhS_kiEvcQ
Mike: (mboned 24 April 2019 22:29 UTC)
-https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/L89ld2Q5yy8YA-O3d-ZWCWpp9JI
Charlie: (mboned 22 April 2019 19:22 UTC)
-https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/ywuze7gfUdp-igRhcHM5OFQsagU
Juan: sent an email off-list on 2019-07-29 stating:
"I'm not aware of any IPR related to
draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems."
The email was sent to Jake Holland, Charlie Perkins, and
draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems@ietf.org
(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?
Reasonably solid. All wg members who could be convinced to read
it seem to think it's a good idea, and seem to understand and
agree with it.
(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.
Several nits found during reviews. A few outstanding that should
be fixed in the -08 draft, but are probably non-blocking:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/1Jl64Yv5g7KTpdbKzd6DMtdqeAw
One more:
- The acknowledgements section is not formatted as a complete sentence.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(n/a? I don't think there were any such requirements--not sure how
to check exhaustively...)
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes. (All references are identified as 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?
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?
No.
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.
(n/a)
(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).
Full contents:
"This document does not request any IANA actions."
This is consistent with the body of the document.
(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.
(n/a)
(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.
(n/a)