Shepherd writeup
rfc8786-01

(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 is a technical specification of a protocol extension

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:
 ->Extensions to the Path Computation Element communications Protocol
   (PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are
   defined in RFC 8231.  One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE
   Request Parameters (SRP) object.  That object includes a Flags field
   that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry
   for tracking assigned flags.  However, RFC 8231 does not explain how
   an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted
   messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned,
   unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages.

   This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors.

Working Group Summary:
->This I-D being a very focused and uncontroversial fix, it has been moved
directly from individual draft to WGLC and submitted to the AD. Based
on the direction from the AD, the file name was changed to reflect the
WG output and to garner more visibility within the WG.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? 
-> A private and unscientific poll of implementers of RFC 8231 conducted
   by the author suggests that existing implementations already abide by
   the modification set out in this document.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
-> Hariharan Ananthakrishnan

Who is the Responsible Area Director? 
-> Deborah Brungard

(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 has been reviewed, updated and is ready to progress.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 
-> No ( We trust the RFC Editor to catch the remaining nits.)

(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.
-> N/A
 
(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. 
-> N/A

(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

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 
-> No

(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? 
-> It reflects WG consensus, extending RFC 8231 to make sure the
unknown flags are handled properly. The document has been reviewed by
some of the key WG members.

(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.) 
-> N/A

(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. 
-> A reference to a living I-D will need to be kept to the latest version.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 
-> N/A

(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. 
-> No

(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 relaationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 
-> This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. 

(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 8126). 
-> The IANA section is consistent with the document's body.

(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. 
-> N/A

(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, YANG modules, etc.
-> N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
-> N/A
Back