Shepherd writeup
rfc8379-16

(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and 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:

      This document specifies extensions to OSPFv3 Prefix/Link attributes
      LSA and the OSPFv3 Extended-Router-LSA to indicate that a link is
      going to be taken out of service and traffic using the link should
      be discouraged but not prevented as a last resort. Multiple service
      providers expressed interest and some are authors. 

Working Group Summary:

      There was considerable discussion on both the use case and whether
      we could use signaling amongst the routers on the link. However, 
      this would not allow a controller to be informed. Additionally,
      there was discussion as to whether this could simply inferred from
      a high forward metric. After some discussion, it was agreed explicit
      signaling was preferred. 

      Additionally, there was some intertwining of requirements with the 
      signaling of other OSPF link attributes. Now that these are resolved
      we can move forward with this draft.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for more a years. There have
      been several iterations due to the controversy over area-wide versus
      neighbor signaling. Now that we have reached consensus, the document
      is fairly stable from a protocol standpoint. There has been some 
      discussion on the use cases and they have been refined in the current
      version.  

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas 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.

     The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
     and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. The document
     shepherd fully believes that we have reached consensus and that the
     document can move forward. 


(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.

      No.

(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.

      None.

(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.

(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?

      There is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved. 

(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.

(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. Publication has been requested for the "OSPFv3 Extended LSAs"
      draft. 

(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.

(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 draft request code points from existing OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and 
     BGP-LS registries. Early allocation will be requested to encourage
     implementation. 

     A link-overload Sub-TLV is requested from both the OSPFv2 
     Prefix/Link Attribute TLV and the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs
     registry. Additionally, Remote-IPv4 address and Local/Remote
     Interface ID Sub-TLVs are requested for OSPFv2 since OSPFv2 doesn't
     handle unique identification of parallel links between OSPFv2 
     routers. 

     Finally, a BGP-LS TLV code point is request for Link-Overload for
     the a BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLV. 
  
(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.

     Not applicable.

(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