Skip to main content

Deterministic Networking (DetNet): Packet Ordering Function
draft-ietf-detnet-pof-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-03-20
(System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-detnet-pof and RFC 9550, changed IESG state to RFC …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-detnet-pof and RFC 9550, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2024-03-20
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2024-03-04
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2024-02-06
11 Barry Leiba Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing
2024-02-06
11 Barry Leiba Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Carsten Bormann was marked no-response
2024-01-26
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Carlos Martínez Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
11 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2024-01-22
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2024-01-22
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-01-22
11 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-01-22
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-01-19
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-01-19
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-01-19
11 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2024-01-19
11 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-01-19
11 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2024-01-18
11 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-01-18
11 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-01-16
11 Martin Duke [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Kyle Rose for the TSVART review.

Thanks also for addressing my DISCUSS.
2024-01-16
11 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Duke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2024-01-15
11 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-11.txt
2024-01-15
11 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2024-01-15
11 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2024-01-09
10 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-10.txt
2024-01-09
10 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2024-01-09
10 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2024-01-09
09 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)
2024-01-09
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-01-09
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2024-01-09
09 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-09.txt
2024-01-09
09 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2024-01-09
09 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2024-01-04
08 (System) Changed action holders to Balazs Varga, János Farkas, Stephan Kehrer, Tobias Heer (IESG state changed)
2024-01-04
08 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2024-01-04
08 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2024-01-03
08 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
The term PREOF is used three times before it gets expanded in Section 2.2.  The others were all expanded earlier.
2024-01-03
08 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-01-03
08 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-01-03
08 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-01-03
08 Martin Duke
[Ballot discuss]
There are several elements here that are either poorly phrased or misconceived in some way.

1. Sequencing of PRF, PEF, and POF functions. …
[Ballot discuss]
There are several elements here that are either poorly phrased or misconceived in some way.

1. Sequencing of PRF, PEF, and POF functions.

Section 4.1 says "However, the PREOF functions run independently without any state exchange required between the PEF and the POF or the PRF and the POF. Error cases in which the POF is presented duplicate packets can lead to out of order delivery of duplicate packets as well as to increased delays."

but then Section 4.6 says "In DetNet scenarios there is always an Elimination function before the POF (therefore duplicates are not considered by the POF)."

I can't reconcile these statements. How can there be a duplicate packet error case if the PEF is always before the POF?

A statement that the POF is always the last thing before egress would clean up some logical holes, like in (3a) below.

2. Requirements for ordering vs loss

What is the purpose of Sec 4.3 directly forwarding packets with (sequence number < POF Last Sent + 1)? There's an implicit requirement that delivering the packet in order is less important that not dropping it, but is a strange requirement for a *Packet Ordering Function*. If Detnet is to be decomposed into three functions, it is very difficult reason about if the POF guarantees ordering, but sometimes it ignores that if it's trying to avoid losses. Just do PRF/PEF if you want to avoid losses!

So I would suggest that the POF forward (sequence number == POF Last Sent + 1) and drop anything earlier.

3. Strange assumptions in the advanced algorithm.

Is there an assumption that there is no PRF beyond the POF? If there is, it's possible that there are different path delays beyond the POF, and that has to be accounted for in the algorithm. My guess is that you are assuming that, given Figure 1. In that case it should be stated explicitly (See point #1).
2024-01-03
08 Martin Duke [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Kyle Rose for the TSVART review.

Removed a DISCUSS point that was addressed, and another that was incorrect.
2024-01-03
08 Martin Duke Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Martin Duke
2024-01-03
08 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-01-02
08 Martin Duke
[Ballot discuss]
There are several elements here that are either poorly phrased or misconceived in some way.

1. Sequencing of PRF, PEF, and POF functions. …
[Ballot discuss]
There are several elements here that are either poorly phrased or misconceived in some way.

1. Sequencing of PRF, PEF, and POF functions.

Section 4.1 says "However, the PREOF functions run independently without any state exchange required between the PEF and the POF or the PRF and the POF. Error cases in which the POF is presented duplicate packets can lead to out of order delivery of duplicate packets as well as to increased delays."

but then Section 4.6 says "In DetNet scenarios there is always an Elimination function before the POF (therefore duplicates are not considered by the POF)."

I can't reconcile these statements. How can there be a duplicate packet error case if the PEF is always before the POF?

A statement that the POF is always the last thing before egress would clean up some logical holes, like in (3a) below.

2. Requirements for ordering vs loss

What is the purpose of Sec 4.3 directly forwarding packets with (sequence number < POF Last Sent + 1)? There's an implicit requirement that delivering the packet in order is less important that not dropping it, but is a strange requirement for a *Packet Ordering Function*. If Detnet is to be decomposed into three functions, it is very difficult reason about if the POF guarantees ordering, but sometimes it ignores that if it's trying to avoid losses. Just do PRF/PEF if you want to avoid losses!

So I would suggest that the POF forward (sequence number == POF Last Sent + 1) and drop anything earlier.

3. Strange assumptions in the advanced algorithm.

3a. Is there an assumption that there is no PRF beyond the POF? If there is, it's possible that there are different path delays beyond the POF, and that has to be accounted for in the algorithm. My guess is that you are assuming that, given Figure 1. In that case it should be stated explicitly (See point #1).

3b. The introduction suggests that out-of-order delivery is a result of the PRF rather than some sort of link-layer pathology. If so, I don't see why it's necessary for the POF timeout to be path-dependent. That is, the shorter-path packets will by definition be in-order[1], and the longer path will be out-of-order. So it's sufficient for the timeout to be the limited by the remaining time budget for the longest path.

[1] Unless there's a loss on that path. But in that case, there is no advantage to a longer delay, so my proposed algorithm holds.

Maybe I'm getting the underlying assumptions wrong?

4. Is there some reason that "Consensus Boilerplate" is set to NO on the datatracker page? Informational RFCs have IETF consensus!
2024-01-02
08 Martin Duke [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Kyle Rose for the TSVART review.
2024-01-02
08 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2024-01-02
08 Roman Danyliw Changed consensus to Yes from No
2024-01-02
08 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-12-26
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-12-21
08 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-08.txt
2023-12-21
08 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2023-12-21
08 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2023-12-20
07 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-pof-07

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT …
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-pof-07

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Lou Berger for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Pascal Thubert, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-pof-07-intdir-telechat-thubert-2023-12-20/ (and I have read Balázs' reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Delay varition sensitivity

Our of curiosity, does the DetNet WG intent to publish another document for another use case: packet-loss-tolerant and delay-variation-sensitive applications ?

## Section 3

Considering the 'jitter' as out-of-scope appears quite a strong statement as I (perhaps wrongly) assume that DetNet is used also in time-sensitive or real-time applications that are often jitter / delay sensitive.

## Section 4.1

Is it PRF or PEF in `that arrive at the PRF before the POF ` ?

## Sections 4.4 & 4.5

The whole sections about 'advanced POF and enhancements' are rather hand-waving. May I suggest to either move it to an appendix, or in a new section about future considerations, or even remove it completely?

## Section 5

I wonder about this section title (and content) as no control plane is actually defined and the POF parameters provisioning was clearly marked as "out of scope" in the previous section.


# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 1

Unsure whether `and the related YANG model is defined in [IEEEP8021CBcv]` is useful in this document that is not about data models. Up to the authors.

## Section 4.2

Consider not using a numbered list of changing the order of the list because it is opposed to the order of functions as seen by a packet.

## Section 8

s/bToerless Eckert/Toerless Eckert/ ?
2023-12-20
07 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-12-20
07 Pascal Thubert Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Pascal Thubert. Sent review to list.
2023-12-19
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2023-12-19
07 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-07.txt
2023-12-19
07 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2023-12-19
07 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2023-12-15
06 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this well-written document. I have a couple of questions and observations, below.

### Section 4.3, possible minor bug

I see …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this well-written document. I have a couple of questions and observations, below.

### Section 4.3, possible minor bug

I see what looks to me like a minor bug in the algorithm description. I think you're assuming the buffer will be drained in sequence order, but I don't think you've said that explicitly. More details below.

Consider the following scenario:

Suppose the value of POFMaxDelay is 5, POFLastSent is initialized to 0, and packets are received as follows:

  time  event              action
  ----  -----              ------
  1    packet no. 1 rcvd  packet no. 1 forwarded
                            POFLastSent = 1

  2    packet no. 4 rcvd  packet no. 4 buffered until time 7

  5    packet no. 3 rcvd  packet no. 3 buffered until time 10

  7    timer expires for  packet no. 4 forwarded
        packet no. 4        POFLastSent = 4

  10    timer expires for  packet no. 3 forwarded
        packet no. 3        POFLastSent = 3
       
As far as I can tell this is what would happen if I followed the algorithm exactly as written. The out-of-order forwarding is undesirable, moving the value of POFLastSent backward seems likely to be an outright bug.

If you agree this is a (small) bug in the algorithm, one way of addressing it would be,

- Be clearer about what POFMaxDelay applies to. In my example above, I have assumed that each packet has an individual timer associated. (This assumption appears to hold in subsequent subsections.)

- When packets are being transmitted from the buffer, they have to be transmitted in increasing sequence number order, regardless of what order they were added to the buffer, and regardless of whether their timer has expired. This means that (as in my example) the expiration of the timer for a packet with sequence number N could trigger the release of some number of packets with sequence number < N.

This seems to be closely related to your note in Section 4.4:

  Note: for the "Advanced POF Algorithm" the path dependent delays
  might result in multiple packets triggering the "maximum delay
  reached" at exactly the same time.  The transmission order of these
  packets then should be done in their seq_num order.

I think a similar critique applies to Section 4.5, final bullet -- you assume the buffer will be drained in sequence order, but I don't think you've said so explicitly.

### General

Would it be reasonable to eliminate the word "frame" and only use "packet"? I see "packet" occurs 80 times in the document whereas "frame" occurs just 5 times. It's not clear to me that "frame" is doing any special work in those places -- if it is, maybe that special case needs to be made clearer.

## NITS

Probably the RFC editor will flag this if they think it necessary, but there are various places where you use language like "PEF function", "POF function", etc. If you consider the expansion of PEF, POF, etc., the word "function" is redundant. See also, "ATM machine".

But English isn't a programming language, and maybe in your view, the text is more readable with the nominal redundancy. That would be OK with me.
2023-12-15
06 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-12-13
06 Bernie Volz Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Pascal Thubert
2023-12-12
06 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by INTDIR
2023-12-11
06 Scott Kelly Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. Sent review to list.
2023-12-08
06 Roman Danyliw Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-01-04
2023-12-08
06 Roman Danyliw Ballot has been issued
2023-12-08
06 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-12-08
06 Roman Danyliw Created "Approve" ballot
2023-12-08
06 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2023-12-08
06 Roman Danyliw Ballot writeup was changed
2023-11-22
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-11-21
06 Kyle Rose Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Kyle Rose. Sent review to list.
2023-11-20
06 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Kyle Rose
2023-11-16
06 Paul Kyzivat Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat.
2023-11-16
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2023-11-15
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2023-11-09
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2023-11-09
06 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-detnet-pof-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-detnet-pof-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2023-11-09
06 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Carsten Bormann
2023-11-09
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat
2023-11-08
06 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-11-08
06 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-11-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-pof@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, rdd@cert.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-11-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-pof@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Deterministic Networking (DetNet): Packet Ordering Function) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet)
to consider the following document: - 'Deterministic Networking (DetNet):
Packet Ordering Function'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-11-22. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Replication and Elimination functions of DetNet Architecture can
  result in out-of-order packets, which is not acceptable for some
  time-sensitive applications.  The Packet Ordering Function (POF)
  algorithm described herein enables to restore the correct packet
  order when replication and elimination functions are used in DetNet
  networks.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-pof/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5032/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5092/





2023-11-08
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-11-08
06 Roman Danyliw Last call was requested
2023-11-08
06 Roman Danyliw Last call announcement was generated
2023-11-08
06 Roman Danyliw Ballot approval text was generated
2023-11-08
06 Roman Danyliw Ballot writeup was generated
2023-11-08
06 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-11-08
06 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)
2023-11-08
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-11-08
06 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-06.txt
2023-11-08
06 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2023-11-08
06 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2023-11-07
05 Roman Danyliw Remaining feedback from AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/E62gocJsCKFTi9oP2iQLFbHCMPA/
2023-11-07
05 (System) Changed action holders to Tobias Heer, Balazs Varga, János Farkas, Stephan Kehrer (IESG state changed)
2023-11-07
05 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-11-07
05 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)
2023-11-07
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-11-07
05 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-05.txt
2023-11-07
05 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2023-11-07
05 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2023-10-27
04 Roman Danyliw AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/hCGJSxqc1LxQf4mNicN--z5Ff2s/
2023-10-27
04 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw, Balazs Varga, János Farkas, Stephan Kehrer, Tobias Heer (IESG state changed)
2023-10-27
04 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2023-10-23
04 Roman Danyliw Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw
2023-10-23
04 Henning Rogge Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Henning Rogge.
2023-07-24
04 Lou Berger
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent. No objections have been raised.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

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.)

No

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)?

This is an information document related to internal implementation related to RFC8655. No specific implementations have been discussed or disclosed.

## 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.

No, N/A.

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.

None required.

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]?

No YANG modules are defined.

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.

NA

## 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?

Yes - as an Informational RFC

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?

[6] was reviewed, no such issues were identified.


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?

Informational -- this documents a method to implement a behavior defined in the previously mentioned RFC.

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.

Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Ig5VIFDARaMpsEochY0mBayo2oY/
IPR was disclosed.

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, < 5 authors.

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.)

Document is ready.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, these look reasonable.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
None

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.
No.

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?

No.

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.

No.

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]).

This is an informational section, no IANA impact.


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.

None

[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/

2023-07-24
04 Lou Berger Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2023-07-24
04 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-07-24
04 Lou Berger IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-07-24
04 Lou Berger Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-07-24
04 Lou Berger Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2023-07-24
04 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2023-07-24
04 Lou Berger
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent. No objections have been raised.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

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.)

No

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)?

This is an information document related to internal implementation related to RFC8655. No specific implementations have been discussed or disclosed.

## 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.

No, N/A.

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.

None required.

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]?

No YANG modules are defined.

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.

NA

## 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?

Yes - as an Informational RFC

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?

[6] was reviewed, no such issues were identified.


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?

Informational -- this documents a method to implement a behavior defined in the previously mentioned RFC.

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.

Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Ig5VIFDARaMpsEochY0mBayo2oY/
IPR was disclosed.

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, < 5 authors.

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.)

Document is ready.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, these look reasonable.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
None

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.
No.

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?

No.

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.

No.

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]).

This is an informational section, no IANA impact.


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.

None

[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/

2023-07-24
04 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-04.txt
2023-07-24
04 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2023-07-24
04 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2023-07-23
03 Lou Berger Need to address ID nits
2023-07-23
03 Lou Berger Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2023-07-23
03 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-07-23
03 Lou Berger
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent. No objections have been raised.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

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.)

No

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)?

This is an information document related to internal implementation related to RFC8655. No specific implementations have been discussed or disclosed.

## 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.

No, N/A.

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.

None required.

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]?

No YANG modules are defined.

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.

NA

## 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?

Yes - as an Informational RFC

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?

[6] was reviewed, no such issues were identified.


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?

Informational -- this documents a method to implement a behavior defined in the previously mentioned RFC.

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.

Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Ig5VIFDARaMpsEochY0mBayo2oY/
IPR was disclosed.

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, < 5 authors.

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.)

** Need rev to address

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, these look reasonable.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
None

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.
No.

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?

No.

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.

No.

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]).

This is an informational section, no IANA impact.


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.

None

[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/

2023-07-23
03 Lou Berger Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2023-07-21
03 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2023-06-16
03 Lou Berger see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/_jcr1_a22rlhwiKIi15QisT3zeI/
2023-06-16
03 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-05-31
03 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-03.txt
2023-05-31
03 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2023-05-31
03 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2023-05-12
02 Lou Berger
All responses received:
balazs.a.varga https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/kRsOQcP0diUAPuYofx51aKZE0Gk/
Janos.Farkas https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/qj0Yz6LRhoq2cZqXmhjDgQ7Y6GU/
Stephan.Kehrer https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/lq1AySQWzXHnt9IJH8uc3LFoQFc/
Tobias.Heer https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/sCjlhWCJFjuEfXGYHnvlvwF3fSQ/
2023-05-12
02 Lou Berger All responses received:
balazs.a.varga https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/kRsOQcP0diUAPuYofx51aKZE0Gk/
Janos.Farkas https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/qj0Yz6LRhoq2cZqXmhjDgQ7Y6GU/
Stephan.Kehrer https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/lq1AySQWzXHnt9IJH8uc3LFoQFc/
Tobias.Heer https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/sCjlhWCJFjuEfXGYHnvlvwF3fSQ/
2023-05-08
02 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-02.txt
2023-05-08
02 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2023-05-08
02 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2023-03-20
01 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Henning Rogge
2023-03-20
01 Luc André Burdet Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Martin Vigoureux was rejected
2023-03-17
01 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Martin Vigoureux
2023-03-12
01 Lou Berger Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2023-03-12
01 Lou Berger Pre WG LC IPR call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Ig5VIFDARaMpsEochY0mBayo2oY/

Responses pending:
balazs.a.varga
Janos.Farkas
Stephan.Kehrer
Tobias.Heer
2023-03-12
01 Lou Berger Changed consensus to No from Unknown
2023-03-12
01 Lou Berger Notification list changed to lberger@labn.net because the document shepherd was set
2023-03-12
01 Lou Berger Document shepherd changed to Lou Berger
2022-11-06
01 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-01.txt
2022-11-06
01 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2022-11-06
01 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision
2022-11-05
00 János Farkas Added to session: IETF-115: detnet  Mon-1300
2022-09-12
00 Balazs Varga This document now replaces draft-varga-detnet-pof instead of None
2022-09-12
00 Balazs Varga New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-pof-00.txt
2022-09-12
00 Balazs Varga New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga)
2022-09-12
00 Balazs Varga Uploaded new revision