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 an optional extension to the OSPF protocol,
   to represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts: the
   metric from a router to the network, and the metric from the network
   to the router.  The router to router metric would be the sum of the

  Working Group Summary:

   As defined in RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, in traditional broadcast network, 
   router-lsa includes a metric defining interface output cost but not the 
   network-lsa. RFC 6845 defines a mechanism to allow a broadcast network 
   to work as a hybrid of broadcast and point-to-multipoint networks to 
   allow accurate representation of the cost of communication between different
   routers on the network.
   This document proposes an enhancement by adding a “Network-to-Router” metric, 
   and it reduces the size and the number of updates of router-lsa.

   The technical aspect of the document, both within the document and mailing 
   list discussions, have been stable for the last twelve months.

  Document Quality:

   This document has been a WG document for more than one year.
   It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more
   than one year.  


      Yingzhen Qu 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 document specifies an optional extension to the OSPF protocol to 
   represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts. The 
   introduced mechanism can reduce the size and number of updates of router-lsa
   for such network.
   There is healthy participation, discussion, and review by the OSPF WG.  
   There are no outstanding issues with this draft.

   One editorial comment: In the last two paragraphs of section 1
   “Introduction”, the word “consider” were used three times, please
   consider rewrite it.

(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

    There has been an IPR disclosure:

    All authors indicated during the WG adoption poll that they knew of no 
    other IPR on the draft. Tom McMillan could not reply to the second IPR 
    poll due to a medical leave.  

(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.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
     discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.

      Please fix all the nits identified:

(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.

     Yes, this document updates RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, which are listed on the
     Please update the "Abstract" to include the updates.

(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 requests the following IANA assignments:
      A new bit in Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability
      Bits, to indicate the capability of supporting two-part metric.
      A new Sub-TLV type in OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV registry, for
      the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.
      A new Sub-TLV type in OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry, for
      the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.
      A new Sub-TLV type in Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)
      registry, for the Network-to-Router TE Metric Sub-TLV.
     The IANA Considerations section correctly identifies the required

(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.

      New registries required are listed in section (17). No Expert Review is 
      necessary when allocating new values, as new values can be allocated via 
      IETF Consensus or IESG Approval.

(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.