(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?
Requested status is "Informational" as indicated in the title page header.
This is appropriate for a document describing use cases.
(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:
This document illustrates some use cases that need to be taken into account by the Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture in the context of an IPv6 environment.
Working Group Summary:
The uses cases are factual and diverse.
Document is clear and has been reviewed by both the SPRING and 6MAN WG.
Bruno Decraene is the Document Shepherd.
Alvaro Retana 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've read all related emails on the SPRING mailing list.
I've reviewed -07 and sent comments on the authors and the mailing list. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/pbPqN80dlMovtyZ1AZBVDe67EIM
Authors have addressed all those comments in -08 and 09.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. Many reviews have been done during WG adoption.
I wish there had been more recent reviews:
- Post WG adoption, review and updates on this document has been limited, but this may be related to the nature of this document as use cases are generally stable and do not require everyone to support all use cases.
- During WG Last Call, comments were "support" which does not indicate how detailed were the reviews.
(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.
Document describes SPRING use cases for the IPv6 data plane. No additional review needed.
WG last call has forwarded to the 6MAN WG for information and additional review.
(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 specific concern.
(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 replied to the IPR poll.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No IPR disclosure 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?
WG as a whole understand it.
During WG adoption, there as been many review and discussion.
There has been no opposition during last call.
The use cases are solid as indicated by the multiple implementations of the IPv6 SR data plane.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
(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.
Nits found have been addressed in -08
(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 needed.
(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?
No. There is one normative reference to an 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.
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 will not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(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).
No IANA consideration. This is consistent with the nature of the document (use cases).
(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 registry.
(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.
The document has no text using formal language.