Shepherd writeup
rfc7488-10

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
> Shepherd Write-Up.
> 
> 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)?  

Proposed Standard

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

Document updates RFC 6887 which is a Proposed Standard

> 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

The document specifies the behavior to be followed by a Port Control Protocol (PCP)
client to contact its PCP server(s) when one or several PCP server IP addresses
are configured.

> 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 noteworthy.  An earlier version of the doc went through a prior WGLC
and had significant discussion, which resulted in significant changes.  The 
resulting version achieved broad consensus and all subsequent versions since
then have been straightforward and non-contentious.

> Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
>  implement the specification? 

Unknown.  The spec is applicable to all PCP client implementations,
of which several are known.

>  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?

Dave Thaler, Simon Perreault, and Hassnaa Moustafa are
called out in the acknowledgements section of the document.
The document shepherd (Dave Thaler) did a review for consistency
with the IPv6 address selection RFC (RFC 6724).

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd? 

Dave Thaler

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Ted Lemon

> (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.

Reviewed for technical clarity/completeness, English grammar/readability,
and relationship to RFC 6724.   Also 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.

Review for consistency with RFC 6724 already performed by doc shepherd.

> (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.

> (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?   

Broad agreement across the WG.  For example, the following all concur:
* M. Boucadair (France Telecom) - editor
* Hassnaa Moustafa (France Telecom) - reviewer
* R. Penno (Cisco) - co-author, WG chair
* D. Wing (Cisco) - co-author, editor of base PCP spec
* P. Patil (Cisco) - co-author
* T. Reddy (Cisco) - co-author
* D. Thaler (Microsoft) - WG chair, document shepherd, author of RFC 6724
* Simon Perreault (Jive) - reviewer, editor of other WG documents
* Deng Qin Si (H3C) - reviewer

No dissent occurred during WGLC.

> (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.

None.

> (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?

No.  All normative references are to RFC.

> (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.

This document "Updates" RFC 6887.  This is called out in the title page
header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction.

> (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).

Document shepherd verified that there are no actions for IANA
(e.g., no new or modified registries), and that the IANA Considerations
section states that there are none.

> (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.

None 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.  So such sections.

Back