Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis-05

[Ballot comment]
It is an embarrassment that we can't do better than TCP MD5.
TCP MD5 (from 1998, RFC2385) has been obsoleted by TCP-AO
(RFC 5925, from 2010), but that hasn't seen deployment.

Back in 1998 (18 years ago!) RFC 2385 included an IESG note
that says:

"This document describes current existing practice for
securing BGP against certain simple attacks.  It is
understood to have security weaknesses against concerted
attacks."

And all these years later we can still do no better when
promoting a document to IS.  Sigh.

However, I see no point in trying to block this document on
that basis.

I would argue for an IESG note along the above lines if I
thought that'd have any impact, but I guess it won't if, as
seems to be the case, people won't move until there's a
catastrophic break.

[Ballot comment]
I am glad that you are moving this document to Internet Standard.

My earlier DISCUSS below:

I have a simple issue with the IANA Considerations section which should be easy to address:

The IANA section seem to be suggesting that IANA should do full search of its registries to update all references to RFC 4447 to point to rfc4447bis. I don't think it is easy for IANA to do that.

This document is obsoleting RFC 4447, which means that there is no need to ever read RFC 4447 in order to implement this document. For that reason, you should copy and paste content of the original RFC 4447's IANA Considerations into this document. After that, add a sentence saying that the only change is updating references to point to this document.

[Ballot discuss]
I have a simple issue with the IANA Considerations section which should be easy to address:

The IANA section seem to be suggesting that IANA should do full search of its registries to update all references to RFC 4447 to point to rfc4447bis. I don't think it is easy for IANA to do that.

This document is obsoleting RFC 4447, which means that there is no need to ever read RFC 4447 in order to implement this document. For that reason, you should copy and paste content of the original RFC 4447's IANA Considerations into this document. After that, add a sentence saying that the only change is updating references to point to this document.

[Ballot comment]
- It would be nice to see a mention that this advances the status to Internet Standard somewhere near the top of the document. Section 10 is sufficient for that, but it sort of buries the lede. (It's too late to matter now,  but it would have been helpful to have the status change called out more strongly in the shepherd writeup and last call announcement. )

I would rather strongly like to see the IANA considerations from the obsoleted RFCs to be copied forward, perhaps with a preface that these were originally in 4447, etc. Especially since this draft requests the references point to it, effectively orphaning the 4447 IANA considerations.

There are a few odd uses of 2119 keywords, all of which I think existed in the original text:

- 7.1: normative REQUIRED the section title
- 7.2: Unattached "NOTs"
- 9.1 : "there is a perception that security MUST be " seems like a statement of fact.

[Ballot comment]
I would prefer to see the IANA section retained and specify the fields in the IANA registry.
It is useful to know which registry to find and where the values are defined.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the IANA registries, any reference to RFC 4447 will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA is aware that there are references in the Pseudowire Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type Registry subregitry of the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

IANA is also aware that there are references in the Pseudowire Status Codes Registry also in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

Finally, IANA is aware that there are references in the TLV Type Name Space subregistry of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

(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?

Internet Standard

(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

  Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode,
  and Ethernet) can be "emulated" over an MPLS backbone by
  encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDU) and then
  transmitting them over "pseudowires". It is also possible to use
  pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and
  Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled
  network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and
  maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label
  Distribution Protocol (LDP).  Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2
  PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.

  This document has been written to address errata in a previous
  version of this standard.


Working Group Summary

  This was reviewed by the WG. There is nothing contentious.

Document Quality

  There are many implementations of this protocol.

Personnel

  Stewart Bryant is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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 personally reviewed the document and it is
  ready for publication.

(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 specialist review is required

(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 have no concerns about this 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.

  We checked with the authors of this version, but not with the
  authors of the original RFC4447. There were no IPR filings against
  RFC4447.

(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 filings show up on datatracker. 

(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 support is solid. 

(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.)

  There has been no threat of an 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.

  The two documents that are obsoleted by this doument are
  noted in the header but not noted in the Abstract. This will
  be fixed in a future version.

(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.

(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 the following Downrefs: RFC3032, RFC5036, RFC7358

These are mature documents with many implementations.

RFC4446 is also a Downref, however all of the IANA requests
it makes were implemented at least 10 years ago

(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.

  The goal was to only make the minium changes to the original text.

  A new section was added before the Introduction that discusses the
  status change of these RFCs.

(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 IANA section requests that IANA replaces references to
RFC4447 with references to this RFC in the following registries:

"TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036
"STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036
"FEC Type Name Space" for the Label Distribution Protocol defined by RFC5036

There are no new registries created and there are no addition to
any registries need by this document.

(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.

(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?

Internet Standard

(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

  Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode,
  and Ethernet) can be "emulated" over an MPLS backbone by
  encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDU) and then
  transmitting them over "pseudowires". It is also possible to use
  pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and
  Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled
  network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and
  maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label
  Distribution Protocol (LDP).  Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2
  PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.

  This document has been written to address errata in a previous
  version of this standard.


Working Group Summary

  This was reviewed by the WG. There is nothing contentious.

Document Quality

  There are many implementations of this protocol.

Personnel

  Stewart Bryant is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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 personally reviewed the document and it is
  ready for publication.

(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 specialist review is required

(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 have no concerns about this 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.

  We checked with the authors of this version, but not with the
  authors of the original RFC4447. There were no IPR filings against
  RFC4447.

(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 filings show up on datatracker. 

(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 support is solid. 

(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.)

  There has been no threat of an 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.

  The two documents that are obsoleted by this doument are
  noted in the header but not noted in the Abstract. This will
  be fixed in a future version.

(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.

(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 the following Downrefs: RFC3032, RFC5036, RFC7358

All of these are mature documents with many implementations.


(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.

  The goal was to only make the minium changes to the original text.

  A new section was added before the Introduction that discusses the
  status change of these RFCs.

(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 IANA section requests that IANA replaces references to
RFC4447 with references to this RFC in the following registries:

"TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036
"STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036
"FEC Type Name Space" for the Label Distribution Protocol defined by RFC5036

There are no new registries created and there are no addition to
any registries need by this document.

(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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis.all@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, "Stewart Bryant" , pals@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label Distribution Protocol) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled
Services WG (pals) to consider the following document:
- 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label Distribution
Protocol'
  as Internet Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-09-21. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode,
  and Ethernet) can be "emulated" over an MPLS backbone by
  encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDU) and then
  transmitting them over "pseudowires". It is also possible to use
  pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and
  Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled
  network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and
  maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label
  Distribution Protocol (LDP).  Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2
  PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.

  This document has been written to address errata in a previous
  version of this standard.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc3032: MPLS Label Stack Encoding (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc5036: LDP Specification (Draft Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7358: Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.

(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?

Internet Standard

(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

  Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode,
  and Ethernet) can be "emulated" over an MPLS backbone by
  encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDU) and then
  transmitting them over "pseudowires". It is also possible to use
  pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and
  Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled
  network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and
  maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label
  Distribution Protocol (LDP).  Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2
  PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.

  This document has been written to address errata in a previous
  version of this standard.


Working Group Summary

  This was reviewed by the WG. There is nothing contentious.

Document Quality

  There are many implementations of this protocol.

Personnel

  Stewart Bryant is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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 personally reviewed the document and it is
  ready for publication.

(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 specialist review is required

(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 have no concerns about this 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.

  We checked with the authors of this version, but not with the
  authors of the original RFC4447. There were no IPR filings against
  RFC4447.

(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 filings show up on datatracker. 

(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 support is solid. 

(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.)

  There has been to threat of an 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.

  The two documents that are obsoleted by this doument are
  noted in the header but not noted in the Abstract. This will
  be fixed in a future version.

(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.

(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 no downrefs.

(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.

  The goal was to only make the minium changes to the original text.

  A new section was added before the Introduction that discusses the
  status change of these RFCs.

(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 IANA section requests that IANA replaces references to
RFC4447 with references to this RFC in the following registries:

"TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036
"STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" defined by RFC5036
"FEC Type Name Space" for the Label Distribution Protocol defined by RFC5036

There are no new registries created and there are no addition to
any registries need by this document.

(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.

(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?

Internet Standard

(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

  Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode,
  and Ethernet) can be "emulated" over an MPLS backbone by
  encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDU) and then
  transmitting them over "pseudowires". It is also possible to use
  pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and
  Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled
  network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and
  maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label
  Distribution Protocol (LDP).  Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2
  PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.

  This document has been written to address errata in a previous
  version of this standard.


Working Group Summary

  This was reviewed by the WG. There is nothing contentious.

Document Quality

  There are many implementations of this protocol.

Personnel

  Stewart Bryant is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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 personally reviewed the document and it is
  ready for publication.

(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 specialist review is required

(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 have no concerns about this 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.

  We checked with the authors of this version, but not with the
  authors of the original RFC4447. There were no IPR filings against
  RFC4447.

(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 filings show up on datatracker. 

(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 support is solid. 

(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.)

  There has been to threat of an 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.

  The two documents that are obsoleted by this doument are
  noted in the header but not noted in the Abstract. This will
  be fixed in a future version.

(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.

(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 no downrefs.

(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.

  The goal was to only make the minium changes to the original text.

  A new section was added before the Introduction that discusses the
  status change of these RFCs.

(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).

  There were no IANA changes.

(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.