Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FEE21F86F7; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:08:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqiDDEzuao7y; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:08:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9403D21F84E7; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:08:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7791; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1358532511; x=1359742111; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject; bh=azBQtzShaRaE9/TuVlopGbr1Y4QGo3Nthnl7SD62Fag=; b=dGX7Wc+0X2rLpuRV70OnthsvME0zlhdglTJN/hSBYiMeYNEvPvoRnYnR bRltM3DalIMFB7ZJIvMHvxYgf2EHz9aMT0AeTDFtWkqQzo0QzFaQhKX6o aB6R6bGe2rcrekw07FQTAhX8wxmFic1XT9/QYvYWlRGKWpbpfNAySiSlC 8=; X-Files: ospf-wg-rfc3137bis-shepherd-writeup.txt : 6215 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,494,1355097600"; d="txt'?scan'208,217"; a="66042679" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2013 18:08:31 +0000 Received: from [10.155.32.51] ([10.155.32.51]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0II8VHX029812; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:08:31 GMT Message-ID: <50F98F9F.3090008@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:08:31 -0800 From: Abhay Roy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , Stewart Bryant , "ospf@ietf.org" , ietf-secretariat@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050707040203060701000803" Subject: [OSPF] Request for Publication of "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement" - draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-03 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:08:34 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050707040203060701000803 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030905080008090104010303" --------------030905080008090104010303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian, Stewart, We are ready to publish draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-03. Please find the shepherd writeup attached. Regards, -Abhay --------------030905080008090104010303 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian, Stewart,

We are ready to publish draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-03. Please find the shepherd writeup attached.

Regards,
-Abhay

--------------030905080008090104010303-- --------------050707040203060701000803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="ospf-wg-rfc3137bis-shepherd-writeup.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ospf-wg-rfc3137bis-shepherd-writeup.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? 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 a backward-compatible technique that may be used by OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) implementations to advertise unavailability to forward transit traffic or to lower the preference level for the paths through such a router. This document updates RFC3137 to include applicability to OSPFv3. Working Group Summary: There were some noteworthy discussions around including an alternate solution in OSPFv3 which achieves some of the same goals as RFC3137. Authors added a section to capture the use of R-bit as a potential alternative solution. R-bit is part of base OSPFv3 (RFC2740). Document Quality: The incremental update to RFC3137 are minimal and the application to OSPFv3 is identical to OSPFv2. Personnel: Abhay Roy is the document shepherd and Stewart Bryant is the responsible AD. (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. The draft is a minimal update of RFC3137. There has been significant review and discussion of this draft on the mailing list. 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? Strong consensus from WG with many participating in discussions. (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. (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. One minor one (see below) remains which can be resolved in rfc-editor queue. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3137, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. (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 (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 is no IANA Action needed. (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 is no IANA Action needed. (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 --------------050707040203060701000803--