(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
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
This document defines a new router-LSA bit known as the Host Bit or the H-bit.
An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit set indicates to other
OSPFv2 routers in the area supporting the functionality that it MUST NOT be used
as a transit router.
Working Group Summary:
The Working Group has reached consensus that this document is useful and should
This is a straight forward draft, and similar function exists in ISIS and OSPFv3. Some nits to be fixed.
There are review comments from AD to be addressed.
Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
Alvaro Retana 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/LSR mailing lists.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
(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.
(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, they all confirmed.
(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?
There is consensus from 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
(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.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or 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?
(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.
RFC 6987 should be a Downward Normative 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.
When implementing this document, the SPF calculation defined
in RFC 2328 needs to be changed. This needs to be clearly stated
in the document.
(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).
This document requires an allocation of Host(H-bit) in OSPF
router-LSA bit registry.
It also requires to define a new Router Functional Capability
(RFC7770), the Host Support Functional Capability, from the Router
Functional Capability Bits 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.
(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.