Please publish draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-02.txt as a standards track
document. Yingzhen Qu is the document shepherd and the write-up is
attached.
Thanks,
Abhay and Acee
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1347\cocoasubrtf570
{\fonttbl\f0\fmodern\fcharset0 Courier;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;}
{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid1\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\*\levelmarker \{disc\}}{\leveltext\leveltemplateid1\'01\uc0\u8226 ;}{\levelnumbers;}\fi-360\li720\lin720 }{\listname ;}\listid1}}
{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1\listoverridecount0\ls1}}
\margl1440\margr1440\vieww23880\viewh16540\viewkind0
\pard\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\sl264\slmult1\pardirnatural
\f0\fs24 \cf0 (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?
\
\
A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
\
title page header.
\
\
(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:
\
\
\pard\pardeftab720\sl264\slmult1
\cf2 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0
\outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 This document describes both a generic mechanism for advertising\
router capabilities and a TLV for advertising informational and\
functional capability bits. \
\pard\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\sl264\slmult1\pardirnatural
\cf0 \kerning1\expnd0\expndtw0 \outl0\strokewidth0
\
\pard\pardeftab720\sl264\slmult1
\cf2 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0
\outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 This document obsoletes RFC 4970 by providing a revised specification\
including support for advertisement of multiple instances of the RI\
LSA and a TLV for functional capabilities.\
\pard\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\sl264\slmult1\pardirnatural
\cf0 \kerning1\expnd0\expndtw0 \outl0\strokewidth0
\
Working Group Summary:
\
\
\pard\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\sl264\slmult1\pardirnatural
\cf0 RFC 4790 has limited scope, and only supports OSPF node level attributes of\
fixed size. This document proposes a generic container for OSPF and \
applications node level attributes of variable size. The technical aspect \
of the document, both within the document and mailing list discussions, have \
been stable for the last six months.
\
\pard\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\sl264\slmult1\pardirnatural
\cf0
\
Document Quality:
\
\
This document has been a WG document for more than six months.
\
It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more
\
than six months.
\
\
Personnel:
\
\
Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
\
Alia Atlas 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.
\
\
\expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0
This document describes both a generic mechanism for advertising\
\pard\pardeftab720\sl264\slmult1
\cf0 router capabilities and a TLV for advertising informational and\
functional capability bits. \kerning1\expnd0\expndtw0 There is healthy participation, discussion, \
and review by the OSPF WG.
\
\pard\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\sl264\slmult1\pardirnatural
\cf0 There are no outstanding issues with this draft.
\
\
(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.
\
\
None.
\
\
(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?
\
\
Yes.
\
\
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
\
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
\
disclosures.
\
\
No.
\
\
(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 strong consensus from the WG.
\
\
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
\
discontent? If so, please summarize 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. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
\
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
\
this check needs to be thorough.
\
\
Authors have resolved all nits.
\
\
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
\
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
\
\
Not applicable.
\
\
(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.
\
\
Yes, this document obsolete RFC 4970, which is listed on the title \
page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction.
\
\
(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 OSPFv2 opaque LSA type 4 has been reserved fro the OSPFv2 RI \
opaque LSA from an existing registry. \
This document defines the following registries:\
\pard\tx220\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\li720\fi-720\sl264\slmult1\pardirnatural
\ls1\ilvl0\cf0 \'95 The OSPFv3 LSA function code 12 has been reserved for the OSPFv3 \
Router Information (RI) LSA.\
{\listtext } \'95 Registry for OSPF RI TLVs.\
{\listtext } \'95 Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits.\
{\listtext } \'95 Registry for OSPF Router Functional Capability bits. \
\pard\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\sl264\slmult1\pardirnatural
\cf0 The IANA Considerations section correctly identifies the required registrations.
\
\
(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.
\
\
New registries required are listed in section (17). No Expert Review is \
necessary when allocating new values, as new values can be allocated via \
IETF Consensus or IESG Approval.
\
\
(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.
\
\
Not applicable.
\
\
}_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
