Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07
(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 properly indicated in the header. This is the appropriate
classification since the document specifies normative procedures and requests the
creation of new IANA registries.
(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 draft defines procedures and messages for SRv6-based BGP
services including L3VPN, EVPN, and Internet services. It builds on
RFC4364 "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" and RFC7432
"BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN".
Working Group Summary:
The BGP Enabled Services (BESS) working group is responsible for
defining, specifying, and extending network services based on BGP. These services
have traditionally been deployed over MPLS networks. However, there is a need to be
able to implement them on new SRv6 based networks. A solution was needed to allow
the advertisement of segment identifiers associated with layer 2 and layer 3 service endpoint
functions over SRv6.
This draft provides such a solution, including services such as IPv4 VPNs, IPv6 VPNs, and
EVPN. The document was developed over a period of time in the BESS WG, in parallel
with the development of SRv6 in the 6MAN and SPRING working groups.
Document Quality:
Segment routing using SRv6 is starting to be deployed. There is a requirement for a
standardised specification for how to deliver widely used VPN services such as provider
provisioned IP VPNs and EVPN over an SRv6 infrastructure, making use of functions available
in SRv6.
The draft received a number of comments during WG last call as well as an RTGDIR review
which were addressed.
I have no concerns about the quality of the document. A number of participants have
indicated knowledge of implementations.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com)
Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com)
(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 reviewed Version 6 of the draft and made a number of editorial comments which have been
addressed in version 7 to a sufficient extent. It is clear and readable.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns. The draft was reviewed by a number of participants during WG last call
and comments addressed. It also received an RTG DIR review and cross-reviewed with
the IDR working group.
(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 formal reviews 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 specific 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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There are 3 IPR disclosures. There was no discussion or objection raised to these.
(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?
There is solid consensus behind the daft. There were a significant number
of participants who indicated support during the WG LC.
(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 are a couple of warnings about outdated informative references
to drafts where the published version number has incremented by one.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
No formal review requirements.
(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?
All normative references are to published RFCs.
(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.
This document does not require a change to the status of any existing document.
(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 8126).
There is one IANA action. This is for the new SR Tunnel Sub-TLV from the BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs registry. This is properly called out in the IANA
considerations section and its usage documented in the body of 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.
None
(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, YANG modules,
etc.
There are no sections written in a formal language.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?
The document does not define any YANG modules.