As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
Proposed Standard. This draft specifies a new application for the ICCP protocol, RFC
7275. The title page is correct.
(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:
Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) supports an inter-chassis
redundancy mechanism which achieves high availability.
In this document, the PEs in a Redundancy Group (RG) running ICCP are
used to offer multi-homed connectivity to Spanning Tree Protocol (STP)
networks. The ICCP TLVs for the STP application are defined, therefore
PEs from the RG can make use of these TLVs to synchronize the state and
configuration data of the STP network. The operation logic of the application
and the usage of these ICCP TLVs are specified.
Working Group Summary
As a result of WG last call, a number of improvements were made to the draft
from revision -01 to -02, largely based on review comments from Alexander
(Sasha) Vainshtein. However, not all of Sasha's suggested changes were
included, which left him a bit dissatisfied. As a result, he may comment during
IETF last call. Because of the changes, the WG was given a chance to re-review
revision -02, and no further WG comments were received. So the WG certainly
has rough consensus.
There is at least one implementation in progress the last time that this was
polled. See my previous comment about Sasha Vainshtein's review and
Andy Malisis the Document Shepherd
Adrian Farrel 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
I was included in the email trail between Sasha and the authors and have reviewed the
resulting draft. Comments that I had during those emails were also taken into account.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, see discussion above.
(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
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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 draft received good comments during its development, and as I said before,
extensive comments from Sasha during WG last call, and no WG dissent on the final
(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, just minor discontent from Sasha that not everything he proposed ended up in the
final revision. He has not threatened an appeal, although he may comment during
IETF last call.
(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
There just a few very minor nits:
== Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 981, but not defined
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6310' is defined on line 1032, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp has been published as RFC 7275
Also, as I was writing this up, I noticed in several places that there was a consistent
typo that transposed "RFC 7275" as "RFC 7257".
These can all be fixed by the RFC Editor.
There is one additional typo I noticed during final review, for consistency with RFC
7275, the term "Redundant Group (RG)" should be "Redundancy Group (RG)". This
comes up twice in the draft. Again, this can be fixed by the RFC Editor.
(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? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(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.
(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.
(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).
There are no new registries defined. The draft does request new values in the "ICC
RG Parameter Types" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-
parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml#icc-rg . The particular requested values are in
the "Expert Review" range. At the time that this registry was established by RFC 7275,
Stewart Bryant was the responsible AD, and as I recall, he named Matthew Bocci and
Samer Salem as the experts.
(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.
(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.