Shepherd writeup
rfc7723-08

(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? 

Proposed Standard, and the title page indicates Standards Track.
This doc completes the chartered WG work on PCP server discovery,
and the companion documents (RFC 7291, 7488) are already Proposed 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:

    The Port Control Protocol (PCP) Anycast Addresses enable PCP clients
    to transmit signaling messages to their closest PCP-aware on-path
    NAT, Firewall, or other middlebox, without having to learn the IP
    address of that middlebox via some external channel.  This document
    establishes one well-known IPv4 address and one well-known IPv6
    address to be used as PCP Anycast Addresses.

Working Group Summary:

    The WG has consensus on this document, nothing particularly rough.

Document Quality:

    Implementation status is unknown, although its existence was motivated
    by experience from Apple's implementation.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? 

    Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>

Who is the Responsible Area Director? 
    
    Brian Haberman

(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. 

    1) reviewed it for technical quality
    2) verified that review was done during WGLC by multiple individuals
       plus the authors
    3) reviewed it against WGLC feedback, which was tracked by issue tracker
       tickets, to verify all were addressed
    4) checked id-nits

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
 of the reviews that have been performed? 

    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 special reviews were expected to be needed

(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?

    None

(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.

    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 disclosures filed.

(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 was discussed at length over a long period of time, by many in the WG.

(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

(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. 

    No errors.  One warning which is intentional.

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

    None relevant.

(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?

    No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? 

    No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

    No.

(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). 

    Section 4 covers new entries to be added to existing IANA registries.
    It identifies the registries and provides all required fields.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future 
allocations.

    None.

(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. 

    None relevant.
Back