Shepherd writeup
rfc7537-03

(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. "Standards Track" is indicated in the title page header. 

(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

   RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 created name spaces for Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping.  However, those RFCs
   did not create the corresponding IANA registries for the Downstream
   Mapping object Flags (DS Flags), Multipath Type, Pad TLV and Address
   Types.

   There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these
   name spaces.  This document updates RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 in that it
   creates the IANA registries for that purpose.

Working Group Summary

   The draft is needed to create registries for two other WG documents and 
   has progressed through the WG with no controversy and sufficient support. 

Document Quality

   The document has been well reviewed. The acknowledgements section will
   need to be filled in or deleted before final publication. 

Personnel

  Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible 
  Area Director?

(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.

   Loa Andersson (WG chair) is co-author, and the other two WG chairs have
   reviewed the document. The document has gone though WG last call with 
   unanimous support. The document was updated after WG last call to fix
   a few minor editorial issues which were identified during last call. 

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

   no concerns.

(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 will need the normal IANA review that occurs
   during IETF last call. 

(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. 

(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.

   All authors have confirmed that they do not know of any IPR that 
   applies to 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.

   No IPR has been disclosed that applies to 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?   

   Solid support. As would be expected with a document that creates a
   registry, those who are working on documents that need this registry 
   pay attention and support the document, and others have been 
   largely silent. 

(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 threats, no discord. 

(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 nits found (document shepherd has run ID nits)

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

   Normal IANA review will be needed during IETF last call. 

(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?

   normative references are to standards track RFCs. There are informative
   references to documents that will use the registries created by this 
   document. 

(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 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.

   not applicable. 

(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).

   The IANA section is pretty much the entire 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.

   All created registries will be assigned by standards action. 

(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 (there is no formal language in the document). 
Back