Shepherd writeup
rfc8487-26

(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.


(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 describes the IP multicast traceroute facility, named
Mtrace version 2 (Mtrace2). Unlike unicast traceroute, Mtrace2
requires special implementations on the part of routers. This
specification describes the required functionality in multicast
routers, as well as how an Mtrace2 client invokes a query and
receives a reply.

Working Group Summary:

This document has received strong support from the working group and no
major controversies exist today with this document.

Document Quality:

The document was significantly reworked since a previous version was
submitted for publication. It generally well written and clear and has
received extensive review from multiple WG members from multiple
operators and vendors.

Personnel

Lenny Giuliano is the Document Shepherd, Warren Kumari is the
Responsible Area Director.

IANA Note

IANA Considerations

The following new registries are to be created and maintained under
the "RFC Required" registry policy as specified in [4].

"Mtrace2 Forwarding Codes" Registry

This is an integer in the range 0-255. Assignment of a Forwarding
Code requires specification of a value and a name for the Forwarding
Code. Initial values for the forwarding codes are given in the table
at the end of Section 3.2.4. Additional values (specific to IPv6)
may also be specified at the end of Section 3.2.5. Any additions to
this registry are required to fully describe the conditions under
which the new Forwarding Code is used.

"Mtrace2 TLV Types" registry

Assignment of a TLV Type requires specification of an integer value
"Code" in the range 0-255 and a name ("Type"). Initial values for
the TLV Types are given in the table at the beginning of Section 3.2.

UDP Destination Port

The Mtrace2 UDP destination port is [TBD].

[WK (1/2018) -  IANA has assigned UDP user port 33435 (mtrace) ]

(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 by the Shepherd, who feels it is ready for
publication.


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

No concerns. Doc has been thoroughly reviewed and all issues seem to be
resolved.

(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.

Not that I am aware of.

(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.

No concerns. Doc has been thoroughly reviewed and all issues seem to be
resolved.

(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?

The authors have confirmed no IPR issue exists for this document.

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

Not aware of any, nor any recollection of any WG discussion regarding IPR.

(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 strong WG consensus to publish the document. No objections have been
noted.

(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.

No applicable issues have been noted by ID nits.

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

Not aware of any.

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

Yes.

(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. All normative references are published RFCs.

(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.

No changes required.

(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).

IANA considerations section looks appropriate to me.

(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.

See IANA considerations above.

(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.

Not applicable.
Back