Shepherd writeup
rfc8097-11

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)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The document is intended as a Standards Track RFC.

The document defines a new BGP opaque extended community.
Because this is a part of BGP processing which could be used globally 
and requires interoperable implementations, Standards Track is appropriate.

The title page says "Intended status: Standards Track".

(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

   This document defines a new BGP opaque extended community to carry
   the origination AS validation state inside an autonomous system.
   IBGP speakers that receive this validation state can configure local
   policies allowing it to influence their decision process.

Working Group Summary

  This document has had consistent interest from the working group.
  Because it defines a new BGP community, it was reviewed by the idr
  working group as well.  It received significant review by idr.

Document Quality

  The document has been implemented by major router vendors.
  It is known to be in use in two large IXPs, AMS-IX and DE-CIX.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Sandra Murphy
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana

(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.

   The document shepherd has reviewed the current document, now and many
   times over the course of its progress.

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

   The shepherd has no concerns about the level of reviews.  The
   document was reviewed in both the sidr and the idr working
   groups.

(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.

   There is no need for review from any particular or broader perspective.

(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.

   The shepherd has no concerns or issues with this document and saw
   no unaddressed concerns in the working group discussions.

(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.

    All authors have confirmed.

(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 disclosure has been filed that references this document.

(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?  

    Both working groups (sidr and idr) have strongly supported this work. 

(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 one has threatened an appeal or expressed extreme discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

    The tools page nits check reports:

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 0 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.

    The warning has to do an unused reference to RFC4271.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    No formal review is required for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

    All references within this document have 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 normative references in this document are 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 normative 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.

    Publication of this document does not change the status of
    any other document.

(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).

    This document says it defines a new opaque extended community that 
    is non-transitive.  The value 0x00 has already been assigned in the
    Non-Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types registry, in
    the First Come First Served range.  The IANA Considerations
    section mentions the registry and the assigned value:

   IANA has assigned the value 0x00 from the "Non-Transitive Opaque
   Extended Community Sub-Types" registry.  The value is called "BGP
   Origin Validation State Extended Community".

(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 by this document.

(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.

    There are no sections of this document written in a formal language.

Back