draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-12.txt (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? Standards Track. This is correctly indicated in the document header. Standards stack is appropriate to this document. The document specifies protocol extensions to ANCP, defining new TLVs that require the allocation of code points from the ANCP registry. (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 specifies the extensions to the Access Node Control Protocol required for support of the multicast use cases defined in the Access Node Control Protocol framework document and one additional use case described in this document. These use cases are organized into the following ANCP capabilities: o NAS-initiated multicast replication; o conditional access with white and black lists; o conditional access with grey lists; o bandwidth delegation; o committed bandwidth reporting. These capabilities may be combined according to the rules given in this specification. Working Group Summary: The document specifies a solution to a set of multicast use cases for ANCP. These use cases are largely specified in RFC5851. That framework draft also contains use cases for the base ANCP protocol, which is specified in RFC6320. The multicast solution was split from the other use case solutions that were eventually published in RFC6320 because, at the time, it was felt that the multicast solution needed further development and review. Document Quality: There are no concerns with document quality. It is believed that there is at least one implementation of the protocol extensions described in the draft, and it has had significant review and refinement over a number of years. There are no formal review criteria. Personnel: Matthew Bocci is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon 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 have reviewed the document a number of times during its development, including the latest version. The document is well written and i believe it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been through two working group last calls in the ANCP working group. It has received significant review and discussion in the WG over a number of years. I am comfortable with the level of review that it has received. (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. None required. (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 concerns. (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. I have received IPR statements from all of the authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There is one IPR declaration (#1426) against v03 of the draft. This was declared on an early version of the draft and no issues have been raised during draft development or during last call. (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? The document has been through two WG last calls. However, the participation in ANCP has dropped substantially in recent years, the authors of tho document representing a large portion of the currently active participants. Due to the long timescale of the development of the draft, the chairs also asked the WG list for statements of interest in progressing the draft. Sufficient interest was indicated. I believe there is WG consensus on the draft. (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.) None indicated. (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. ID nits passes. There is one warning about a normative reference to an IANA registry (non-RFC), but this seems to be erroneous. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no formal review criteria. (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. 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. The document updates RFC6320 in the sense that it makes changes to the allocation policies in some ANCP registries that were originally created by RFC 6320. The updates are to allocate a previously reserved code point (0x03) in the ANCP capability types registry, and to change the starting point for future reservations from the consensus range in the ANCP result codes registry. I am comfortable with these changes as they appear to fix errors in the original establishment of the registries. (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 document requests new allocations from the existing ANCP registries. These are clearly indicated in tabular form in the IANA considerations section of the document, and appear consistent with the requests contained in the body of the document. There is one request to assign value 3 from the ANCP capability type registry. This value is currently marked as ‘reserved’ rather than ‘unassigned’, based on RFC6320. This value was originally reserved for use with the multicast draft in mind, but it appears this comment is missing from the IANA registry. Given that there are already implementations of the ANCP multicast extensions, I believe it is reasonable for IANA to assign this value as requested in the draft. Furthermore, there are some assignment requests that do not follow sequentially from the existing start point for assignments in the IANA registries e.g. for the ANCP result code registry. Given the existing implementation base, it would be reasonable to simply allow these assignments, despite slight fragmentation of the existing unassigned code point space. The allocation policies in the IANA result code registry should be updated as requested in the draft. (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. (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. None required.