Shepherd writeup

(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

Technical Summary:

      This document specifies auto-configuration of OSPFv3 routers in
      certain environments that require auto-configuration, such as in a
      small IPv6 network like a home network.  To facilitate
      auto-configuration, this document specifies the default
      configuration, allows more flexibility in some verifications
      required by the OSPFv3 specification, and also describes a
      possible collision as well as the mechanism to resolve the 

Working Group Summary:

      The OSPFv3 router ID collision detection and resolution was a
      heated point of discussion a few months ago, but the issue has
      been resolved by IETF 89.  The technical aspect of the document,
      both within the document and mailing list discussions, have been
      stable for the last six months.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for a little under two years.
      It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more
      than six months.  There are also two implementations based on this
      document already.  There is potentially a third implementation
      which implements parts of this draft.


      Helen Chen 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.

      This draft describes the mechanism for auto-configuration of
      OSPFv3 routers in a home network environment.  There is healthy
      participation, discussion, and review by both the OSPF WG and the
      homenet WG, including two complete implementations as well as a 
      third implementation that partially implements this draft.  
      There are no outstanding issues with this draft.

(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?

(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 strong consensus from the WG, with a core group of WG
      participants agreeing with the solution and another group of more
      invested participants involved in long discussions that converged.

(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.)


(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 thorough.

      Authors have resolved all nits.

(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?


(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.


(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.


(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 defines a new type of OSPFv3 LSA, which requires
      assignment of a number from the existing "OSPFv3 LSA Function
      Code" registry.  This document also defines a new registry for the
      TLVs of this new OSPFv3 LSA.  The IANA Considerations section
      correctly identifies the required registrations.

(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.

      A new registry for OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration (AC) LSA TLVs is
      required.  No Expert Review is necessary when allocating new
      values, as new values can be allocated via IETF Consensus or IESG

(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.