> 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)? Why
> is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
> title page header?
Standard Track (Proposed Standard), as indicated in the title page header.
This specifies an extension to RFC 6887 which is 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
>
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.
This document extends Port Control Protocol (PCP) with the ability to
associate a description with a PCP-instantiated mapping. It does so
by defining a new DESCRIPTION option.
> Working Group Summary
>
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?
Nothing controversial.
> 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, 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?
It is expected that any implementation of RFC 6970 (PCP/UPnP-IGD interop) would
want this extension. One known implementation is reported in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-experiments-00#section-2.1.
Other than the document editor, the following people reviewed the document
during WGLC and all concluded the document had no substantive issues:
1) Dave Thaler (document shepherd, WG co-chair)
2) Tiru Reddy
3) Simon Perreault
4) Paul Selkirk
5) Reinaldo Penno (WG co-chair, co-author)
> Personnel
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
> Director?
Document Shepherd: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
> (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.
Document shepherd:
* Reviewed content during WGLC.
* Checked id-nits.
* Verified 5 WG participants (not including doc editor) all said looks good,
and no issues were left unaddressed.
> (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.
> (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.
No concerns.
> (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 IPR disclosures.
> (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 as a whole understands and agrees with it.
> (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.
Nothing found.
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None 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?
All references are to 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 no downward references.
> (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.
No. The document specifies a new option for the PCP protocol which is
already extensible in a way that does not require the base specification
to be Updated.
> (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 document requests allocation of a protocol parameter from an existing
IANA registry. The registry is clearly identified, along with the
information required to allocate a value.
> (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.
No new IANA registries are created.
> (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.
No such sections exist.