Shepherd writeup

Document Writeup for Working Group Documents

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd

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 document defines new protocol procedures and a new TLV.

(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:

   Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) setup through an explicit
   path may be required to provide a simple solution for 1:1 protection
   with diverse primary and backup MS-PWs for a service, or to enable
   controlled signaling (strict or loose) for special MS-PWs.  This
   document specifies the extensions and procedures required to enable
   dynamic MS-PWs to be established along explicit paths.

Working Group Summary:

   The document has been held up in the working group for a while because it is
   dependent on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, which is currently in the RFC Editor's
   queue (draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er was split out from that draft in 2011). We kept this
   draft in the WG until draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw reached the RFC Editor in case
   any changes were made during WG LC, IETF LC, or IESG deliberation that might
   result in changes to this draft. As it turned out, no such changes were needed.

Document Quality:

   There is at least one publicly known, shipping implementation of this draft (ALU). The
   document text has been stable for quite some time, other than a few recent changes
   made as a result of the shepherd's review.


   Andrew Malis is 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 the IESG.

   I did a shepherd's review prior to IESG submission and found one small technical nit
   and a bunch of editing nits, which were all corrected in the revision being submitted.

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

   None. It's been in the WG for a while and had good discussion and comments.

(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.


(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.


(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 disclosures.

   None have been 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?

   There is solid WG consensus behind this document.

(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

   The document passes nits cleanly.

(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?

   All are RFCs except for draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, which is in the RFC Editor's

(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).

   The IANA considerations section is very simple, it requests one new entry to the TLV
   Type list at
   namespaces.xhtml#ldp-namespaces-4 , in the IETF Consensus range.

(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.