Draft:  
Reviewer: 
Review Date:
Review Deadline: 
Status: post WGLC | WGLC | Interim review | Initial review 

Summary: Pick the bulleted single statement summary from the guidelines that best meets your overall impression of this document - i.e. one of the following:

- This draft is ready for publication as a [type] RFC, where [type] is Informational, Experimental, etc. (In some cases, the review might recommend publication as a different [type] than requested by the author.) 

- This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. 

- This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. 

- This draft has serious issues, described in the review, and needs to be rethought. 

- This draft has very fundamental issues, described in the review, and further work is not recommended. 

- Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to review this draft. [Note: This shouldn't typically be the case for documents within the SIPPING WG. In the case where some specifics are outside the reviewer's area of expertise, it is acceptable to make a statement upfront in the review that certain aspects should be reviewed by experts knowledgeable in a specific area (e.g., XML, MIBs, etc.). ]