Document Writeup

As required by RFC-to-be draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up for individual submissions via the IESG.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 5, 2007.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the 
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document 
        and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready 
        for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of 
        the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd 
        have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed?

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., 
        security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, 
        internationalization or XML?

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has 
        indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail 
        those concerns here.

  (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind 
        this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few 
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested 
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not 
        enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all 
        formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media 
        type and URI type reviews?

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative? 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 strategy for their 
        completion? Are there normative references that are downward 
        references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward 
        references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure 
        for them [RFC3967].

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of 
        the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are 
        reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the 
        IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new 
        registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the 
        registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? 
        Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See 
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document 
        describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the 
        Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed 
        Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, 
        BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an 
        automated checker?

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document 
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document 
        Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the 
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval 
        announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary

        Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or 
        introduction of the document. If not, this may be an 
        indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or 
        introduction.

    Working Group Summary

        Was there anything in the discussion in the interested 
        community that is worth noting? For example, was there 
        controversy about particular points or were there decisions 
        where the consensus was particularly rough? Was the document 
        considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a 
        work item there?

    Document Quality

        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement 
        the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special 
        mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that 
        resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document 
        had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media 
        Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In 
        the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request 
        posted?