As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Proposed Standard.
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
It defines protocols and may well be referenced by external standards bodies.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes
(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 a mechanism to signal Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
Pseudowires (PW) tree using LDP. Such a mechanism is suitable for any Layer 2
VPN service requiring P2MP connectivity over an IP or MPLS enabled PSN.
A P2MP PW established via the proposed mechanism is root initiated. This
document updates RFC7385 by re-assigning reserved value 0xFF to be the
wildcard transport tunnel type.
Working Group Summary
The Working Group and its predecessor (PWE3) took a long time
to finish the document. There was not much comment on it in
WGLC. It is none-the-less a useful document which should be
published as part of completing the IETF work on "classical"
pseudowires.
Document Quality
This is a well written document that clearly explains how to
signal Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Stewart Bryant is the document shepherd, and Deborah Brungard
is the responsible AD.
(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.
I read the document line by line and gave feedback to the editors which
they incorporated into the text.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I have 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, they do not.
(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.
I am quite comfortable with the document.
(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 have.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR was disclosed against this document or any of those
in the replaced by sequence.
(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?
The WG agrees with the text, but have become less vocal in recent
years. I am satisfied that there is adequate consensus to publish.
(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 one has threatened to appeal.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
There are a number of easy to fix nits. They don't impact the readability.
It is best to continue with the review process and fix them next time
the draft is revised.
(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 they have.
(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?
They are all RFCs.
(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.
There are none.
(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.
It performs an update to RFC7385 by allocating a parameter previously
reserved by that RFC. The update is noted on the front page. It is
also noted in the Abstract but not the Introduction. It is also called
up in the IANA section.
The update is fairly minor.
(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.
I have checked the IANA considerations and they look correct and appropriate.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified.
Yes they have.
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).
Not applicable.
(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.
There are no such 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.
There are no content written in a formal language.