BGP SR Policy Extensions for Network Resource Partition
draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-12-14
|
04 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Adoption call: (3/1/2023 to 3/14/2023) extended to 3/24 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M-jL8KZ0Km6jT9ePHZo4LvaEgec/ (Adoption CALL … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Adoption call: (3/1/2023 to 3/14/2023) extended to 3/24 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M-jL8KZ0Km6jT9ePHZo4LvaEgec/ (Adoption CALL IPR is contained below) Adoption call approval needed to be confirmed with TEAS WG which had a lengthy discussion due to related topics. On 12/10/2023, the TEAS WG Chairs returned the result that this WG could be adopted by IDR TEAS WG email: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FCNlC6hrUAl9zyrzLODvIN8WY5Q/ IDR WG will do a joint WG LC for this draft with TEAS. [Please do not remove] Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. WG Adoption IPR Zhibo Hu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JVBkPrp3y1eAmgoANrQdMKtOa2M/ Jie Dong https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MBCiL5CjLfJxucim5fYb4Tb2xPM/ Ran Pang https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-y0MGPQr6QLY-gTsfwK5TG1ySCM/ 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-10-23
|
04 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp-04.txt |
2023-10-23
|
04 | Jie Dong | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jie Dong) |
2023-10-23
|
04 | Jie Dong | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-05
|
03 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp-03.txt |
2023-09-05
|
03 | Jie Dong | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jie Dong) |
2023-09-05
|
03 | Jie Dong | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-03
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-04-07
|
02 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Adoption call: (3/1 to 3/14) extended to 3/24 Thank you for … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Adoption call: (3/1 to 3/14) extended to 3/24 Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Zhibo Hu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JVBkPrp3y1eAmgoANrQdMKtOa2M/ Jie Dong https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MBCiL5CjLfJxucim5fYb4Tb2xPM/ Ran Pang https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-y0MGPQr6QLY-gTsfwK5TG1ySCM/ 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-04-07
|
02 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-04-07
|
02 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2023-02-28
|
02 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Call For Adoption By WG Issued from Candidate for WG Adoption |
2023-02-28
|
02 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Candidate for WG Adoption |
2023-02-28
|
02 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to none |
2023-02-28
|
02 | Susan Hares | Changed group to Inter-Domain Routing (IDR) |
2023-02-28
|
02 | Susan Hares | Changed stream to IETF |
2023-01-30
|
02 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp-02.txt |
2023-01-30
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-01-30
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jie Dong , Ran Pang , Zhibo Hu |
2023-01-30
|
02 | Jie Dong | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-12
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-07-11
|
01 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp-01.txt |
2022-07-11
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-07-11
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jie Dong , Ran Pang , Zhibo Hu |
2022-07-11
|
01 | Jie Dong | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-03
|
00 | (System) | This document now replaces draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-vtn instead of None |
2022-03-03
|
00 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp-00.txt |
2022-03-03
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-03
|
00 | Jie Dong | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Jie Dong , Ran Pang , Zhibo Hu |
2022-03-03
|
00 | Jie Dong | Uploaded new revision |