(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:
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.
Implementation status is unknown, although its existence was motivated
by experience from Apple's implementation.
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Dave Thaler <email@example.com>
Who 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.
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?
(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?
(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.
(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.)
(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.
(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?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing 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).
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
(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.