This write up is for 3 documents that are inter-dependent within the ForCES WG. The documents are: 1) ForCES Forwarding Element Model (draft-ietf-forces-model-14) 2) ForCES Protocol Specification (draft-ietf-forces-protocol-15) 3) ForCES MIB (draft-ietf-forces-mib-07) (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? The Document Shepherd is ForCES working group co-chair Jamal Hadi Salim . He has personally reviewed all 3 documents and believes that they are ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. The 3 documents form the core output work done by the ForCES WG and are intended for Proposed Standard publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The 3 drafts (and previous versions of the drafts) have been well-discussed by key WG members and key non-WG members on the ForCES mailing list and at the IETF meetings since 2003. Alia Atlas has done a very careful review of both the model and protocol drafts. The Document Shepherd feels the breadth of the reviews that have been performed were sufficient. There are 4 known implementations by 4 different organizations. Some implementations are more in sync with the latest drafts than others. There was an interop of initial versions of the drafts between 3 of the implementations. (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? No - there are no concerns that the documents require additional broader review. (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The document shepherd is not aware of specific concerns or issues with these documents. The document shepherd does not believe there are any IPR concerns/disclosures to these documents. (1.e) 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 working group consensus behind these documents. It is an effort of several years work. [There initially were 3 (existing) protocol proposals. The protocol draft is a strong consensus of a unified proposal in the WG. The other two drafts follow]. (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.) The shepherd is not aware of any discontent related to these documents. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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? The shepherd has verified to the best of his ability that there are no ID nits in these drafts. (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]. The Document Shepherd believes all references are appropriately split in all documents. There are inter-references in the drafts to each other but those are resolvable once RFC numbers are issued. (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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. 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? The IANA considerations appear to be correct. (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? The MIB has undergone review by the MIB doctor and the issues that were fixed are documented in Section 10 of the draft. The XML schema for the model has undergone several reviews by expert participants at the WG. The last expert to review of the XML was made by Evangelos Haleplidis and is on the current draft releases. Evangelos validated the XML of the schema as well as the conformance to the schema by the various objects defined in both the protocol and Model. The shepherd verified the BNF of the protocol.