Shepherd writeup

Working Group: NFSv4
Area Director: Spencer Dawkins
Document Author/Shepherd:  Spencer Shepler (

Internet Draft:

(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?

	Thus document is a candidate for Proposed Standard RFCs.

(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 definition of using RPC [RFC5531] for
   concurrent operation in both directions on a single transport
   connection using RPC-over-RDMA protocol versions that do not have
   specific facilities for backward direction operation.

   Backward direction RPC transactions are necessary for the operation
   of NFSv4.1, and in particular, of pNFS, though any Upper Layer
   Protocol implementation may make use of them.  An Upper Layer Binding
   for NFSv4.x callback operation is additionally required (see
   Section 7), but is not provided in this document.

   For example, using the approach described herein, RPC transactions
   can be conveyed in both directions on the same RPC-over-RDMA Version
   One connection without changes to the the XDR description of RPC-
   over-RDMA Version One.  This document does not modify the XDR or
   protocol described in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis].  Future versions
   of RPC-over-RDMA may adopt the approach described herein, or may
   replace it with a different approach.

Working Group Summary

   These documents have been non-controversial within the working group
   and there is broad support for the work.

Document Quality

   The document quality is high.  There has been very good review and input
   from the working group throughout the process.  There is very good
   implementation experience in this area and was the reason why the
   document was originally suggested as a working group item - an outcome
   of implementation of the existing RPC RDMA capabilities.

(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 done a full review of the documents
	and they are 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.

(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.

	No special review is needed.

(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.

	Not applicable.

(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.

    	Not applicable.

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

	Full working group consensus.  No issues exist.

(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.) 

	Not applicable.

(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

	One reference will need to be updated to most recent version.
	No other major issues.

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

	Not applicable.

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

	Yes, appropriate references align with appropriate
	normative and informative use.

(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 published.

(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. 

	Not applicable.

(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 has been reviewed and been found to meet the
	necessary requirements.

(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.

	IANA registries do not require expert review.

(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.