Shepherd writeup
rfc8475-08

[ Edits by Warren Kumari marked with [WK]]
(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? 

Informational.

(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 describes using IPv6's RA capabilities to enable simple multihoming for networks connected to two or more upstream Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This document describes tying the advertisement of avaialble address space through the RA to hosts in a network in response to the availability of upstream connectivity, including sample policies.

Working Group Summary:

The v6ops working group discussed this draft extensively, and the authors made several changes to account for working group input. The document did not raise any controversy,; the authors addresses all the comments quickly.

Document Quality:

There are a number of nits to be addressed, according to the id-nits tool. The overall quality of the document is good; the writing style is easily readable, and the explanations are clear. There was no MIB doctor or other outside review required.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 

Russ White is the document shepherd. The responsible Area Director is [WK]: Warren Kumari. 

(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. 

Other than the nits mentioned above, this document is ready for publication.

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

No.


(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. 

No.

(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 reviewed the text of the document, examined the WG discussion on the mailing list archive, verified the referenced documents, and ran the document through the id-nits tool. Other than the id-nits issues, this document is ready for publication.

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

No.

(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. 

No.

(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. 

There are none that I am aware of.

(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?

[WK]: Yes, all authors have confirmed:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KZvakIi1t3o56H38h2iLiqp39D8
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/BUMmLrjR1pLPR93y3ofc0X50-Sk

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

[WK]: No IPR Disclosures 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? 

Examining the list, it appears there is a solid concensus among the working group in support of 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.) 

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. . Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

The document has some nits according to the id-nit tool. Specifically, the abstract contains a reference which should be "straight text," and there are a number of unused references. There are some other minor nits, specifically in a number of lines which exceed 72 characters, but these appear to be related to figures would be difficult to reformat and remain meaningful.

The document appears to be missing the RFC2119 boilerplate for MUST and SHOULD statements. There are five MUST statements in the document; the authors should either convert these statements to lower case, or include the boilerplate.

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

This document does not appear to need any of the mentioned formal reviews.

(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.

(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.

(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. 

No.

(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 requirements for IANA mentioned in the document. The IANA section of the document accurately reflects this.

(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. 

There are none.

(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 only check required for this document was the id-nits check, with results as described above.

Back