Skip to main content

BGP Color-Aware Routing (CAR)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-03-21
06 Carlos Pignataro Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu
2024-03-17
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Action items - prior to publishing
1) Need …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Action items - prior to publishing
1) Need Jim Uttaro to give an IPR statement for -06
    He gave support without an IPR Statement.
2) publish -07 with editorial changes
3) Check on responses from PCE, BESS, Spring
4) Early Review from IANA review of -06
5) OPS-DIR Early Review [-06]
6) RTG-AD check on normative/informative list.
7) final NITS check
8) Update of shepherd with issues from 1-7
9) Update of the implementation report 

## 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?

This document history is in reverse order for ease of access.

The CAR progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki
and the IDR WG Github
wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CAR-WGLC)
github:  https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues

Status
=====
Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -06.txt
[Shepherd report on Editorial issues:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/de9x2kpB8bI-kojYlYOozKNArsk/

Shepherd Report as issue lists (github)
G1- Should Fix issues: (16) [(github issue 19)](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/19): status: fixes agreed upon, fixing in -07
G2- IANA Issues: Github issue 20](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/20), status agreed upon, fixing in -07, 
    Early IANA review requested (3/12)
G3- Editorial Nits in Main text (37): Github issues 21-24 - fixing in -07
[github 21](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/21),
[github 22](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/22),
[github 23](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/23),
[github 24](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/24
G4- Editorial Nits in Appendices: Github issue 25
[github 25](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/25) -fixing in -07

-------
2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024
  Initial call:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vnaLLq3MUuiONqfjFkpIPl9Q-Zs/
Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0z4B2QfVGmmS7EI6IFjfHccd8AY/

Directorate reviews before 2nd WG LC
  RTG-DIR (by Mike McBride): status: has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/
  OPS-DIR (missing)
  SEC-DIR (by Yoav Nir): status:  has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/
  TSV-DIR (by Brian Trammel): status: On the right track
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-tsvart-early-trammell-2024-01-16/
-----
Post WG LC - Interim discussion on 9/25
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)

------
1st WG LC
version: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
Email call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_6wv8MYHgMESkH3ZjVlzn14KYy8/
result: Non-consensus
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)

## Shepherd Report for 1st WG LC on wiki:
list of issues:  [car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf](/idr/car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf)
Shepherd's report on issues: [car-shepherd-report](/idr/idr-shepherd-car-wglc-q1-issues-v3.pdf)

-----
Adoption call: 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.

Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)

--------------------
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair)
posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route origination/propagation,
BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but operationally different.
-----
Dependencies on Spring:
a) Link to Spring Individual drafts in Spring adoption queue
  Link to draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03
  for requirements of Intent/Color aware routing.
  Note: Since these requirements were not a WG draft,
  this caused CAR to have only theoretical scaling results.
  Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT.

  Link to Spring Individual Internet Drafts in informative text:
    draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13.

Spring chairs have been advised about these two drafts.

b) MPLS draft that is dead [draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07]
  status is: IESG Dead.
--------
c. Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts.
He sent comments to the CAR authors. [need the link]

d. Dependencies with BESS:
  BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts.
  No direct information was received.
----------
## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd
RTG-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Ben Niven) - Issues, needs introduction
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0X_q_e09ejtb0NZQ25smUrklwmQ/)
Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bgp-car-05 (Mike McBride) - status: has nits,
(IDR Shepherd is worried about the depth of type-1/type-2 review in this shepherd review.
The shepherd may have considered it, but no comments were mentioned.) 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/

OPS-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Yingzhen Qu) - status: has issues
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02-opsdir-early-qu-2023-08-22/)
Missing Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 - [pending]

SEC-DIR reviews:
Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 (Yoav Nir) - status: has nits
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/

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

Rough Adoption decision:
The IDR chairs agree with Jeff Haas's (IDR Co-chair) summary posted on March
21, 2022, that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR
and BGP-CT are functionally identical but operationally different.

IDR WG could not come to a consensus on CAR vs. CT.  IDR Chairs elected to adopt
both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts.  Experience in the market
place will help determine which is better operationally.

Rough 1st WG LC of CAR/CT: The IDR WG LC for CAR and CT found the
editors/authors/contributors of CT commenting on the CAR draft (Just as CAR
authors commented on CT draft). In some ways, this lively debate helped find
problems in the specifications.

2nd WG LC of CAR/CT: This WG LC did not have a lot of
CAR/CT editor discussions because the IDR Shepherding Chair had
a private discussion between editors prior to the 2nd WG LC.

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.)

Andrew mentioned he received feedback that there would be discomfort
if the CAR and CT do not progress to the Experimental simultaneously.
See Andrew Alston for additional details.

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)?

  2 WG LC: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, and freertr.
  Implementation report:
    https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car


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.

  Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
  Received reviews from PCE: [need link]
  Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana)
    The following drafts were in the option queue:
      draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
      draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13 (validate again)

  Nothing was received from BESS.
  RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-05) has nits, (-02) has issues
  OPS-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-02) has issues, [pending for -06]
  SEC-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-05) has nits
  TSV-DIR review:  1 early review  - (-05) on the Right Track
  review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06 (3/12 request)

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.

  No requirement for formal review (MIB, Yang, Media type, and URI)
  A yang module for CT will be added to the list of Yang modules to create for
  BGP.

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 in the document

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.
  No automated checking

## 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?

  Checks completed:
  1) Pre-Adoption by Jeff Haas and discussion among chairs
  2) Careful Adoption review resulted in a list of issues that needed to be
  resolved:
      (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-CTAdoption)
  3) Adoption call issues added to github for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car

  4) 1st WG LC -
      Prior to 1st WG LC: Shepherd verified that issues were addressed
                          and early Early Directorate reviews requested,
      1st WG LC: Shepherd report written
      (see https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-WGLC and
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues
      Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff Haas.

  5) 2nd WG LC
      Prior to 2nd WG LC:
        a) Shepherd verified that issues raised in 1st WG LC were addressed.
        b) Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff
        Haas.
      c) IDR Shepherd resoloved Technical issues - via email and meetings
        d) Early reviews requested for -05 (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR)
          open reviews: resolution of OPS-DIR.
        d) Meeting with CAR and CT editor teams during 2nd WGLC
        e) two interims in 2024 - January 29 and February 26 - review status
    6) Post WG LC
        a) Shepherd reports with editorial nits
        b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues
        c) Review issues with document editors - awaiting -07 version to check resolution. 
        d) IANA review of -06 requested. [pending]
        e) Requested the OPS-DIR review of current version (-06 or -07) by 3/28.
       
    7) Current pending status for Shepherd's checks
        a) Response from IANA review of -06
        b) Response from OPS-DIR resolution check
        c) final NITS check


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?
   
    Early review from TSV confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR did not find problems.
    Missing review from OPS-DIR on -05 or -06 version

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?

    Experimental draft.  Why? IDR cannot settle on a single solution for
    Intent-based (Color) routing. The top 2 solutions are forwarded as
    experimental drafts to allow operational deployment to give feedback.

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.

Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
1st WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t9SNNGKovgouzX9JflxrF-S9JA4/

Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/
2nd  WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Yf5t6UJyZvpUln9pt3L_vezA1_o/

Authors:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pPwHlbefWf-41sd-CUCwABfncjs/

Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AhkEXE1qIZKd_g6JHLUpwq-0B10/

Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y-7xBJabNZfZIysh5dRd_8ZH93Y/

Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JuoFvhFypSH7foZW9S3nq0haxMo/

Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_E8wLXIei3p18CgrZe1dR1dYOdU/
2nd WG LC: [no IPR statement in WG LC 2]
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d7RGLGREzL8cWEXG3kt4zcH9WbQ/

Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uQvAeNYnU4Tl_V8Jgr7V6iT0szs/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0xY2q4n0N6d18m3h-sUPtVL5w8Q/

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/

Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com 
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zH7yZ8JY90aizrvt_UbDiW0MPb4/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/

Haibo Wang
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Q-mu1tej5zbt5qUVHtAs7Sq5gCw/

Jie Dong
2nd WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/w37WDDhusHqheD_X7e3de-pAFE8/

Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YWnHAeBBpXdJs6F6q_F2cG9pPZA/

Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AF9DV51BLMOirSaCRUl876e571I/

Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PXo0-fRGx9ibcZHfFypVLizqZx8/

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.

Total number of editors: 2
Total number of authors: 10 (back page)
Total number of contributors: 3 [back page]

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.)

[NITS - awaits the -07 version of the draft] 

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

    IDR Chairs team has looked at normative versus non-normative.
    [Pending] Request RTG-AD for IDR take a look at normative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All References are RFCs or Internet Drafts.

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 the 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.

  This document does not change any other document.

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]).

    Review the IANA considerations sections with authors and [RFC8126].
    Requested early IANA Review of section.

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.

    Two registries are designated expert review:
    a.  BGP CAR NLRI Types Registry
    b.  BGP CAR NLRI TLV Registry

    As a shepherd, I felt the review criteria in section 10.3
    was not adequate.  After a discussion with the authors, I decided
    to ask for an early IANA Review.  I will also talk to the
    IANA people at IETF-119.

[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/

2024-03-13
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Action items - prior to publishing
1) Need …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Action items - prior to publishing
1) Need Jim Uttaro to give an IPR statement for -06
    He gave support without an IPR Statement.
2) publish -07 with editorial changes
3) Check on responses from PCE, BESS, Spring
4) Early Review from IANA review of -06
5) OPS-DIR Early Review [-06]
6) RTG-AD check on normative/informative list.
7) final NITS check
8) Update of shepherd with issues from 1-7
9) Update of the implementation report 

## 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?

This document history is in reverse order for ease of access.

The CAR progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki
and the IDR WG Github
wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CAR-WGLC)
github:  https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues

Status
=====
Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -06.txt
[Shepherd report on Editorial issues:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/de9x2kpB8bI-kojYlYOozKNArsk/

Shepherd Report as issue lists (github)
G1- Should Fix issues: (16) [(github issue 19)](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/19): status: fixes agreed upon, fixing in -07
G2- IANA Issues: Github issue 20](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/20), status agreed upon, fixing in -07, 
    Early IANA review requested (3/12)
G3- Editorial Nits in Main text (37): Github issues 21-24 - fixing in -07
[github 21](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/21),
[github 22](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/22),
[github 23](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/23),
[github 24](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/24
G4- Editorial Nits in Appendices: Github issue 25
[github 25](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/25) -fixing in -07

-------
2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024
  Initial call:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vnaLLq3MUuiONqfjFkpIPl9Q-Zs/
Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0z4B2QfVGmmS7EI6IFjfHccd8AY/

Directorate reviews before 2nd WG LC
  RTG-DIR (by Mike McBride): status: has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/
  OPS-DIR (missing)
  SEC-DIR (by Yoav Nir): status:  has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/
  TSV-DIR (by Brian Trammel): status: On the right track
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-tsvart-early-trammell-2024-01-16/
-----
Post WG LC - Interim discussion on 9/25
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)

------
1st WG LC
version: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
Email call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_6wv8MYHgMESkH3ZjVlzn14KYy8/
result: Non-consensus
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)

## Shepherd Report for 1st WG LC on wiki:
list of issues:  [car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf](/idr/car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf)
Shepherd's report on issues: [car-shepherd-report](/idr/idr-shepherd-car-wglc-q1-issues-v3.pdf)

-----
Adoption call: 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.

Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)

--------------------
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair)
posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route origination/propagation,
BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but operationally different.
-----
Dependencies on Spring:
a) Link to Spring Individual drafts in Spring adoption queue
  Link to draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03
  for requirements of Intent/Color aware routing.
  Note: Since these requirements were not a WG draft,
  this caused CAR to have only theoretical scaling results.
  Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT.

  Link to Spring Individual Internet Drafts in informative text:
    draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13.

Spring chairs have been advised about these two drafts.

b) MPLS draft that is dead [draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07]
  status is: IESG Dead.
--------
c. Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts.
He sent comments to the CAR authors. [need the link]

d. Dependencies with BESS:
  BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts.
  No direct information was received.
----------
## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd
RTG-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Ben Niven) - Issues, needs introduction
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0X_q_e09ejtb0NZQ25smUrklwmQ/)
Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bgp-car-05 (Mike McBride) - status: has nits,
(IDR Shepherd is worried about the depth of type-1/type-2 review in this shepherd review.
The shepherd may have considered it, but no comments were mentioned.) 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/

OPS-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Yingzhen Qu) - status: has issues
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02-opsdir-early-qu-2023-08-22/)
Missing Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 - [pending]

SEC-DIR reviews:
Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 (Yoav Nir) - status: has nits
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/

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

Rough Adoption decision:
The IDR chairs agree with Jeff Haas's (IDR Co-chair) summary posted on March
21, 2022, that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR
and BGP-CT are functionally identical but operationally different.

IDR WG could not come to a consensus on CAR vs. CT.  IDR Chairs elected to adopt
both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts.  Experience in the market
place will help determine which is better operationally.

Rough 1st WG LC of CAR/CT: The IDR WG LC for CAR and CT found the
editors/authors/contributors of CT commenting on the CAR draft (Just as CAR
authors commented on CT draft). In some ways, this lively debate helped find
problems in the specifications.

2nd WG LC of CAR/CT: This WG LC did not have a lot of
CAR/CT editor discussions because the IDR Shepherding Chair had
a private discussion between editors prior to the 2nd WG LC.

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.)

Andrew mentioned he received feedback that there would be discomfort
if the CAR and CT do not progress to the Experimental simultaneously.
See Andrew Alston for additional details.

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)?

  2 WG LC: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, and freertr.
  Implementation report:
    https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car


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.

  Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
  Received reviews from PCE: [need link]
  Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana)
    The following drafts were in the option queue:
      draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
      draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13 (validate again)

  Nothing was received from BESS.
  RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-05) has nits, (-02) has issues
  OPS-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-02) has issues, [pending for -06]
  SEC-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-05) has nits
  TSV-DIR review:  1 early review  - (-05) on the Right Track
  review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06 (3/12 request)

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.

  No requirement for formal review (MIB, Yang, Media type, and URI)
  A yang module for CT will be added to the list of Yang modules to create for
  BGP.

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 in the document

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.
  No automated checking

## 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?

  Checks completed:
  1) Pre-Adoption by Jeff Haas and discussion among chairs
  2) Careful Adoption review resulted in a list of issues that needed to be
  resolved:
      (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-CTAdoption)
  3) Adoption call issues added to github for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car

  4) 1st WG LC -
      Prior to 1st WG LC: Shepherd verified that issues were addressed
                          and early Early Directorate reviews requested,
      1st WG LC: Shepherd report written
      (see https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-WGLC and
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues
      Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff Haas.

  5) 2nd WG LC
      Prior to 2nd WG LC:
        a) Shepherd verified that issues raised in 1st WG LC were addressed.
        b) Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff
        Haas.
      c) IDR Shepherd resoloved Technical issues - via email and meetings
        d) Early reviews requested for -05 (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR)
          open reviews: resolution of OPS-DIR.
        d) Meeting with CAR and CT editor teams during 2nd WGLC
        e) two interims in 2024 - January 29 and February 26 - review status
    6) Post WG LC
        a) Shepherd reports with editorial nits
        b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues
        c) Review issues with document editors - awaiting -07 version to check resolution. 
        d) IANA review of -06 requested. [pending]
        e) Requested the OPS-DIR review of current version (-06 or -07) by 3/28.
       
    7) Current pending status for Shepherd's checks
        a) Response from IANA review of -06
        b) Response from OPS-DIR resolution check
        c) final NITS check


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?
   
    Early review from TSV confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR did not find problems.
    Missing review from OPS-DIR on -05 or -06 version

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?

    Experimental draft.  Why? IDR cannot settle on a single solution for
    Intent-based (Color) routing. The top 2 solutions are forwarded as
    experimental drafts to allow operational deployment to give feedback.

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.

Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
1st WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t9SNNGKovgouzX9JflxrF-S9JA4/

Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/
2nd  WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Yf5t6UJyZvpUln9pt3L_vezA1_o/

Authors:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pPwHlbefWf-41sd-CUCwABfncjs/

Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AhkEXE1qIZKd_g6JHLUpwq-0B10/

Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y-7xBJabNZfZIysh5dRd_8ZH93Y/

Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JuoFvhFypSH7foZW9S3nq0haxMo/

Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_E8wLXIei3p18CgrZe1dR1dYOdU/
2nd WG LC: [no IPR statement in WG LC 2]
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
[need IPR statement]

Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uQvAeNYnU4Tl_V8Jgr7V6iT0szs/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0xY2q4n0N6d18m3h-sUPtVL5w8Q/

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/

Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com 
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zH7yZ8JY90aizrvt_UbDiW0MPb4/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/

Haibo Wang
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Q-mu1tej5zbt5qUVHtAs7Sq5gCw/

Jie Dong
2nd WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/w37WDDhusHqheD_X7e3de-pAFE8/

Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YWnHAeBBpXdJs6F6q_F2cG9pPZA/

Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AF9DV51BLMOirSaCRUl876e571I/

Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PXo0-fRGx9ibcZHfFypVLizqZx8/

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.

Total number of editors: 2
Total number of authors: 10 (back page)
Total number of contributors: 3 [back page]

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.)

[NITS - awaits the -07 version of the draft] 

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

    IDR Chairs team has looked at normative versus non-normative.
    [Pending] Request RTG-AD for IDR take a look at normative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All References are RFCs or Internet Drafts.

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 the 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.

  This document does not change any other document.

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]).

    Review the IANA considerations sections with authors and [RFC8126].
    Requested early IANA Review of section.

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.

    Two registries are designated expert review:
    a.  BGP CAR NLRI Types Registry
    b.  BGP CAR NLRI TLV Registry

    As a shepherd, I felt the review criteria in section 10.3
    was not adequate.  After a discussion with the authors, I decided
    to ask for an early IANA Review.  I will also talk to the
    IANA people at IETF-119.

[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/

2024-03-13
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Action items - prior to publishing
1) publish …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Action items - prior to publishing
1) publish -07 with editorial changes
2) Check on responses from PCE, BESS, Spring
3) Early Review from IANA review of -06
4) OPS-DIR Early Review [-06]
5) final NITS check
6) Update of shepherd's report

## 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?

This document history is in reverse order for ease of access.

The CAR progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki
and the IDR WG Github
wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CAR-WGLC)
github:  https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues

Status
=====
Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -06.txt
[Shepherd report on Editorial issues:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/de9x2kpB8bI-kojYlYOozKNArsk/

Shepherd Report as issue lists (github)
G1- Should Fix issues: (16) [(github issue 19)](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/19): status: fixes agreed upon, fixing in -07
G2- IANA Issues: Github issue 20](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/20), status agreed upon, fixing in -07, 
    Early IANA review requested (3/12)
G3- Editorial Nits in Main text (37): Github issues 21-24 - fixing in -07
[github 21](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/21),
[github 22](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/22),
[github 23](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/23),
[github 24](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/24
G4- Editorial Nits in Appendices: Github issue 25
[github 25](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/25) -fixing in -07

-------
2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024
  Initial call:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vnaLLq3MUuiONqfjFkpIPl9Q-Zs/
Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0z4B2QfVGmmS7EI6IFjfHccd8AY/

Directorate reviews before 2nd WG LC
  RTG-DIR (by Mike McBride): status: has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/
  OPS-DIR (missing)
  SEC-DIR (by Yoav Nir): status:  has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/
  TSV-DIR (by Brian Trammel): status: On the right track
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-tsvart-early-trammell-2024-01-16/
-----
Post WG LC - Interim discussion on 9/25
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)

------
1st WG LC
version: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
Email call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_6wv8MYHgMESkH3ZjVlzn14KYy8/
result: Non-consensus
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)

## Shepherd Report for 1st WG LC on wiki:
list of issues:  [car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf](/idr/car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf)
Shepherd's report on issues: [car-shepherd-report](/idr/idr-shepherd-car-wglc-q1-issues-v3.pdf)

-----
Adoption call: 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.

Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)

--------------------
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair)
posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route origination/propagation,
BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but operationally different.
-----
Dependencies on Spring:
a) Link to Spring Individual drafts in Spring adoption queue
  Link to draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03
  for requirements of Intent/Color aware routing.
  Note: Since these requirements were not a WG draft,
  this caused CAR to have only theoretical scaling results.
  Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT.

  Link to Spring Individual Internet Drafts in informative text:
    draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13.

Spring chairs have been advised about these two drafts.

b) MPLS draft that is dead [draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07]
  status is: IESG Dead.
--------
c. Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts.
He sent comments to the CAR authors. [need the link]

d. Dependencies with BESS:
  BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts.
  No direct information was received.
----------
## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd
RTG-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Ben Niven) - Issues, needs introduction
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0X_q_e09ejtb0NZQ25smUrklwmQ/)
Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bgp-car-05 (Mike McBride) - status: has nits,
(IDR Shepherd is worried about the depth of type-1/type-2 review in this shepherd review.
The shepherd may have considered it, but no comments were mentioned.) 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/

OPS-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Yingzhen Qu) - status: has issues
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02-opsdir-early-qu-2023-08-22/)
Missing Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 - [pending]

SEC-DIR reviews:
Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 (Yoav Nir) - status: has nits
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/

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

Rough Adoption decision:
The IDR chairs agree with Jeff Haas's (IDR Co-chair) summary posted on March
21, 2022, that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR
and BGP-CT are functionally identical but operationally different.

IDR WG could not come to a consensus on CAR vs. CT.  IDR Chairs elected to adopt
both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts.  Experience in the market
place will help determine which is better operationally.

Rough 1st WG LC of CAR/CT: The IDR WG LC for CAR and CT found the
editors/authors/contributors of CT commenting on the CAR draft (Just as CAR
authors commented on CT draft). In some ways, this lively debate helped find
problems in the specifications.

2nd WG LC of CAR/CT: This WG LC did not have a lot of
CAR/CT editor discussions because the IDR Shepherding Chair had
a private discussion between editors prior to the 2nd WG LC.

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.)

Andrew mentioned he received feedback that there would be discomfort
if the CAR and CT do not progress to the Experimental simultaneously.
See Andrew Alston for additional details.

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)?

  2 WG LC: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, and freertr.
  Implementation report:
    https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car


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.

  Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
  Received reviews from PCE: [need link]
  Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana)
    The following drafts were in the option queue:
      draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
      draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13 (validate again)

  Nothing was received from BESS.
  RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-05) has nits, (-02) has issues
  OPS-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-02) has issues, [pending for -06]
  SEC-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-05) has nits
  TSV-DIR review:  1 early review  - (-05) on the Right Track
  review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06 (3/12 request)

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.

  No requirement for formal review (MIB, Yang, Media type, and URI)
  A yang module for CT will be added to the list of Yang modules to create for
  BGP.

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 in the document

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.
  No automated checking

## 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?

  Checks completed:
  1) Pre-Adoption by Jeff Haas and discussion among chairs
  2) Careful Adoption review resulted in a list of issues that needed to be
  resolved:
      (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-CTAdoption)
  3) Adoption call issues added to github for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car

  4) 1st WG LC -
      Prior to 1st WG LC: Shepherd verified that issues were addressed
                          and early Early Directorate reviews requested,
      1st WG LC: Shepherd report written
      (see https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-WGLC and
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues
      Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff Haas.

  5) 2nd WG LC
      Prior to 2nd WG LC:
        a) Shepherd verified that issues raised in 1st WG LC were addressed.
        b) Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff
        Haas.
      c) IDR Shepherd resoloved Technical issues - via email and meetings
        d) Early reviews requested for -05 (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR)
          open reviews: resolution of OPS-DIR.
        d) Meeting with CAR and CT editor teams during 2nd WGLC
        e) two interims in 2024 - January 29 and February 26 - review status
    6) Post WG LC
        a) Shepherd reports with editorial nits
        b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues
        c) Review issues with document editors - awaiting -07 version to check resolution. 
        d) IANA review of -06 requested. [pending]
        e) Requested the OPS-DIR review of current version (-06 or -07) by 3/28.
       
    7) Current pending status for Shepherd's checks
        a) Response from IANA review of -06
        b) Response from OPS-DIR resolution check
        c) final NITS check


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?
   
    Early review from TSV confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR did not find problems.
    Missing review from OPS-DIR on -05 or -06 version

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?

    Experimental draft.  Why? IDR cannot settle on a single solution for
    Intent-based (Color) routing. The top 2 solutions are forwarded as
    experimental drafts to allow operational deployment to give feedback.

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.

Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
1st WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t9SNNGKovgouzX9JflxrF-S9JA4/

Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/
2nd  WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Yf5t6UJyZvpUln9pt3L_vezA1_o/

Authors:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pPwHlbefWf-41sd-CUCwABfncjs/

Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AhkEXE1qIZKd_g6JHLUpwq-0B10/

Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y-7xBJabNZfZIysh5dRd_8ZH93Y/

Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JuoFvhFypSH7foZW9S3nq0haxMo/

Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_E8wLXIei3p18CgrZe1dR1dYOdU/
2nd WG LC: [no IPR statement in WG LC 2]
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
[need IPR statement]

Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uQvAeNYnU4Tl_V8Jgr7V6iT0szs/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0xY2q4n0N6d18m3h-sUPtVL5w8Q/

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/

Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com 
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zH7yZ8JY90aizrvt_UbDiW0MPb4/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/

Haibo Wang
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Q-mu1tej5zbt5qUVHtAs7Sq5gCw/

Jie Dong
2nd WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/w37WDDhusHqheD_X7e3de-pAFE8/

Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YWnHAeBBpXdJs6F6q_F2cG9pPZA/

Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AF9DV51BLMOirSaCRUl876e571I/

Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PXo0-fRGx9ibcZHfFypVLizqZx8/

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.

Total number of editors: 2
Total number of authors: 10 (back page)
Total number of contributors: 3 [back page]

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.)

[NITS - awaits the -07 version of the draft] 

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

    IDR Chairs team has looked at normative versus non-normative.
    [Pending] Request RTG-AD for IDR take a look at normative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All References are RFCs or Internet Drafts.

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 the 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.

  This document does not change any other document.

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]).

    Review the IANA considerations sections with authors and [RFC8126].
    Requested early IANA Review of section.

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.

    Two registries are designated expert review:
    a.  BGP CAR NLRI Types Registry
    b.  BGP CAR NLRI TLV Registry

    As a shepherd, I felt the review criteria in section 10.3
    was not adequate.  After a discussion with the authors, I decided
    to ask for an early IANA Review.  I will also talk to the
    IANA people at IETF-119.

[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/

2024-03-12
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]


## Document History

1. Does the working group …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]


## 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?

This document history is in reverse order for ease of access.

The CAR progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki
and the IDR WG Github
wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CAR-WGLC)
github:  https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues

Status
=====
Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -06.txt
[Shepherd report on Editorial issues:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/de9x2kpB8bI-kojYlYOozKNArsk/

Shepherd Report as issue lists (github)
G1- Should Fix issues: (16) [(github issue 19)](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/19): status: fixes agreed upon, fixing in -07
G2- IANA Issues: Github issue 20](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/20), status agreed upon, fixing in -07, 
    Early IANA review requested (3/12)
G3- Editorial Nits in Main text (37): Github issues 21-24 - fixing in -07
[github 21](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/21),
[github 22](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/22),
[github 23](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/23),
[github 24](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/24
G4- Editorial Nits in Appendices: Github issue 25
[github 25](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/25) -fixing in -07

-------
2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024
  Initial call:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vnaLLq3MUuiONqfjFkpIPl9Q-Zs/
Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0z4B2QfVGmmS7EI6IFjfHccd8AY/

Directorate reviews before 2nd WG LC
  RTG-DIR (by Mike McBride): status: has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/
  OPS-DIR (missing)
  SEC-DIR (by Yoav Nir): status:  has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/
  TSV-DIR (by Brian Trammel): status: On the right track
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-tsvart-early-trammell-2024-01-16/
-----
Post WG LC - Interim discussion on 9/25
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)

------
1st WG LC
version: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
Email call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_6wv8MYHgMESkH3ZjVlzn14KYy8/
result: Non-consensus
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)

## Shepherd Report for 1st WG LC on wiki:
list of issues:  [car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf](/idr/car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf)
Shepherd's report on issues: [car-shepherd-report](/idr/idr-shepherd-car-wglc-q1-issues-v3.pdf)

-----
Adoption call: 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.

Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)

--------------------
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair)
posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route origination/propagation,
BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but operationally different.
-----
Dependencies on Spring:
a) Link to Spring Individual drafts in Spring adoption queue
  Link to draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03
  for requirements of Intent/Color aware routing.
  Note: Since these requirements were not a WG draft,
  this caused CAR to have only theoretical scaling results.
  Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT.

  Link to Spring Individual Internet Drafts in informative text:
    draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13.

Spring chairs have been advised about these two drafts.

b) MPLS draft that is dead [draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07]
  status is: IESG Dead.
--------
c. Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts.
He sent comments to the CAR authors. [need the link]

d. Dependencies with BESS:
  BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts.
  No direct information was received.
----------
## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd
RTG-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Ben Niven) - Issues, needs introduction
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0X_q_e09ejtb0NZQ25smUrklwmQ/)
Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bgp-car-05 (Mike McBride) - status: has nits,
(IDR Shepherd is worried about the depth of type-1/type-2 review in this shepherd review.
The shepherd may have considered it, but no comments were mentioned.) 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/

OPS-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Yingzhen Qu) - status: has issues
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02-opsdir-early-qu-2023-08-22/)
Missing Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 - [pending]

SEC-DIR reviews:
Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 (Yoav Nir) - status: has nits
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/

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

Rough Adoption decision:
The IDR chairs agree with Jeff Haas's (IDR Co-chair) summary posted on March
21, 2022, that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR
and BGP-CT are functionally identical but operationally different.

IDR WG could not come to a consensus on CAR vs. CT.  IDR Chairs elected to adopt
both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts.  Experience in the market
place will help determine which is better operationally.

Rough 1st WG LC of CAR/CT: The IDR WG LC for CAR and CT found the
editors/authors/contributors of CT commenting on the CAR draft (Just as CAR
authors commented on CT draft). In some ways, this lively debate helped find
problems in the specifications.

2nd WG LC of CAR/CT: This WG LC did not have a lot of
CAR/CT editor discussions because the IDR Shepherding Chair had
a private discussion between editors prior to the 2nd WG LC.

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.)

Andrew mentioned he received feedback that there would be discomfort
if the CAR and CT do not progress to the Experimental simultaneously.
See Andrew Alston for additional details.

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)?

  2 WG LC: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, and freertr.
  Implementation report:
    https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car


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.

  Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
  Received reviews from PCE: [need link]
  Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana)
    The following drafts were in the option queue:
      draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
      draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13 (validate again)

  Nothing was received from BESS.
  RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-05) has nits, (-02) has issues
  OPS-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-02) has issues, [pending for -06]
  SEC-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-05) has nits
  TSV-DIR review:  1 early review  - (-05) on the Right Track
  review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06 (3/12 request)

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.

  No requirement for formal review (MIB, Yang, Media type, and URI)
  A yang module for CT will be added to the list of Yang modules to create for
  BGP.

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 in the document

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.
  No automated checking

## 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?

  Checks completed:
  1) Pre-Adoption by Jeff Haas and discussion among chairs
  2) Careful Adoption review resulted in a list of issues that needed to be
  resolved:
      (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-CTAdoption)
  3) Adoption call issues added to github for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car

  4) 1st WG LC -
      Prior to 1st WG LC: Shepherd verified that issues were addressed
                          and early Early Directorate reviews requested,
      1st WG LC: Shepherd report written
      (see https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-WGLC and
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues
      Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff Haas.

  5) 2nd WG LC
      Prior to 2nd WG LC:
        a) Shepherd verified that issues raised in 1st WG LC were addressed.
        b) Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff
        Haas.
      c) IDR Shepherd resoloved Technical issues - via email and meetings
        d) Early reviews requested for -05 (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR)
          open reviews: resolution of OPS-DIR.
        d) Meeting with CAR and CT editor teams during 2nd WGLC
        e) two interims in 2024 - January 29 and February 26 - review status
    6) Post WG LC
        a) Shepherd reports with editorial nits
        b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues
        c) Review issues with document editors - awaiting -07 version to check resolution. 
        d) IANA review of -06 requested. [pending]
        e) Requested the OPS-DIR review of current version (-06 or -07) by 3/28.
       
    7) Current waiting status:
        a) Response from IANA review of -06
        b) Response from OPS-DIR resolution check
        c) final NITS check


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?
   
    Early review from TSV confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.

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?

    Experimental draft.  Why? IDR cannot settle on a single solution for
    Intent-based (Color) routing. The top 2 solutions are forwarded as
    experimental drafts to allow operational deployment to give feedback.

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.

Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
1st WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t9SNNGKovgouzX9JflxrF-S9JA4/

Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/
2nd  WG LC:
Missing

Authors:
1st WG LC:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil@cisco.com)
[missing]
2nd WG LC:
[Missing]

Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AhkEXE1qIZKd_g6JHLUpwq-0B10/

Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y-7xBJabNZfZIysh5dRd_8ZH93Y/

Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
1st WG LC:

2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JuoFvhFypSH7foZW9S3nq0haxMo/

Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/

Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0xY2q4n0N6d18m3h-sUPtVL5w8Q/

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/
2nd WG LC:

Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com 
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/


Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
[missing]

Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
[missing]

Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PXo0-fRGx9ibcZHfFypVLizqZx8/

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.

Total number of editors: 2
Total number of authors: 10 (back page)
Total number of contributors: 3 [back page]

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.)

[Shepherd's report]

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

[TBD - Shepherd's report]
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

[TBd]

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.

[TBD]

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?
[TBD]

19. Will the 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.

[TBD]

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]).

[TBD]
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.

[TBD]

[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/

2024-03-12
06 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2024-03-12
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

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?

This document history is in reverse order for ease of access.





Adoption call:

Adoption call for CAR was held on 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but operationally different.

Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)


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

IDR did not reach a consensus on CAR vs. CT.  The IDR Chairs adopted both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts.

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)?

Adoption call: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, others.


## 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.

Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
1st WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t9SNNGKovgouzX9JflxrF-S9JA4/

Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/
2nd  WG LC:
Missing

Authors:
1st WG LC:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil@cisco.com)
[missing]
2nd WG LC:
[Missing]

Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AhkEXE1qIZKd_g6JHLUpwq-0B10/

Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y-7xBJabNZfZIysh5dRd_8ZH93Y/

Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
1st WG LC:

2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JuoFvhFypSH7foZW9S3nq0haxMo/

Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/

Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0xY2q4n0N6d18m3h-sUPtVL5w8Q/

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/
2nd WG LC:

Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com 
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/


Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
[missing]

Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
[missing]

Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PXo0-fRGx9ibcZHfFypVLizqZx8/

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.

Total number of editors: 2
Total number of authors: 10 (back page)
Total number of contributors: 3 [back page]

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.)

[Shepherd's report]

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

[TBD - Shepherd's report]
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

[TBd]

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.

[TBD]

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?
[TBD]

19. Will the 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.

[TBD]

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]).

[TBD]
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.

[TBD]

[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/

2024-03-12
06 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-02-24
06 Susan Hares
# 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?

Adoption call:

Adoption call for CAR was held on 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but operationally different.

Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)


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

IDR did not reach a consensus on CAR vs. CT.  The IDR Chairs adopted both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts.

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)?

Adoption call: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, others.


## 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.

Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
1st WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t9SNNGKovgouzX9JflxrF-S9JA4/

Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/
2nd  WG LC:
Missing

Authors:
1st WG LC:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil@cisco.com)
[missing]
2nd WG LC:
[Missing]

Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AhkEXE1qIZKd_g6JHLUpwq-0B10/

Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y-7xBJabNZfZIysh5dRd_8ZH93Y/

Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
1st WG LC:

2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JuoFvhFypSH7foZW9S3nq0haxMo/

Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/

Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0xY2q4n0N6d18m3h-sUPtVL5w8Q/

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/
2nd WG LC:

Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com 
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/


Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
[missing]

Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
[missing]

Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
1st WG LC:
[given, find it]
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PXo0-fRGx9ibcZHfFypVLizqZx8/

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.

Total number of editors: 2
Total number of authors: 10 (back page)
Total number of contributors: 3 [back page]

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.)

[Shepherd's report]

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

[TBD - Shepherd's report]
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

[TBd]

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.

[TBD]

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?
[TBD]

19. Will the 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.

[TBD]

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]).

[TBD]
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.

[TBD]

[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/

2024-02-16
06 Susan Hares The Dead line WG LC comments is 3/1/2024.
2024-02-07
06 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-02-07
06 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Sarah Banks was marked no-response
2024-02-02
06 Swadesh Agrawal New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06.txt
2024-02-02
06 (System) New version approved
2024-02-02
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Co-authors , Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal
2024-02-02
06 Swadesh Agrawal Uploaded new revision
2024-01-26
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Niclas Comstedt Early OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
05 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2024-01-16
05 Brian Trammell Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Brian Trammell. Sent review to list.
2024-01-04
05 Mike McBride Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Mike McBride. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-01-04
05 Mike McBride Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Mike McBride.
2023-12-21
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2023-12-19
05 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride
2023-12-19
05 Yoav Nir Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yoav Nir. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-12-19
05 Yoav Nir Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yoav Nir.
2023-12-19
05 Magnus Westerlund Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Brian Trammell
2023-12-15
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir
2023-12-15
05 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Early review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2023-12-15
05 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Dick Hardt was marked no-response
2023-12-14
05 Susan Hares Requested Early review by TSVART
2023-12-14
05 Susan Hares Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2023-12-14
05 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2023-12-14
05 Susan Hares Requested Early review by SECDIR
2023-12-12
05 Dhananjaya Rao New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05.txt
2023-12-12
05 (System) New version approved
2023-12-12
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Co-authors , Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal
2023-12-12
05 Dhananjaya Rao Uploaded new revision
2023-11-14
04 Dhananjaya Rao New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-04.txt
2023-11-14
04 (System) New version approved
2023-11-14
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Co-authors , Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal
2023-11-14
04 Dhananjaya Rao Uploaded new revision
2023-10-23
03 Swadesh Agrawal New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-03.txt
2023-10-23
03 (System) New version approved
2023-10-23
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Co-authors , Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal
2023-10-23
03 Swadesh Agrawal Uploaded new revision
2023-08-22
02 Yingzhen Qu Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. Sent review to list.
2023-08-02
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu
2023-07-31
02 Ben Niven-Jenkins Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. Sent review to list.
2023-07-25
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car and draft-wang-idr-cpr
2023-07-18
02 Will LIU Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Will LIU was rejected
2023-07-18
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Will LIU
2023-07-18
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt
2023-07-18
02 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': duplicate review request - closing one of the duplicate requests
2023-07-17
02 Haomian Zheng Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn': Duplicate with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/reviewrequest/17850/
2023-07-17
02 Haomian Zheng Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins
2023-07-17
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2023-07-17
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2023-07-17
02 Susan Hares end of WG LC 7/23
2023-07-17
02 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-07-17
02 Susan Hares Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2023-07-13
02 Jonathan Hardwick Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Jonathan Hardwick was rejected
2023-07-13
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Dick Hardt
2023-07-13
02 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Early review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn'
2023-07-10
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2023-07-10
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by SECDIR
2023-07-09
02 Haomian Zheng Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick
2023-07-07
02 Dhruv Dhody Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Dhruv Dhody was rejected
2023-07-07
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2023-07-06
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2023-07-06
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2023-07-06
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by SECDIR
2023-07-06
02 Dhananjaya Rao New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02.txt
2023-07-06
02 (System) New version approved
2023-07-06
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Co-authors , Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal , idr-chairs@ietf.org
2023-07-06
02 Dhananjaya Rao Uploaded new revision
2023-07-06
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Co-authors , Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal
2023-07-06
02 Dhananjaya Rao Uploaded new revision
2023-03-28
01 Jie Dong Added to session: IETF-116: idr  Thu-0030
2023-03-13
01 Dhananjaya Rao New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-01.txt
2023-03-13
01 (System) New version approved
2023-03-13
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal , idr-chairs@ietf.org
2023-03-13
01 Dhananjaya Rao Uploaded new revision
2023-03-01
00 (System) Document has expired
2022-11-09
00 Susan Hares
2022-11-09
00 Susan Hares
2022-11-09
00 Susan Hares
2022-10-12
00 Susan Hares
# 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?

Adoption call:

Adoption call for CAR was held on 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but operationally different.

Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)


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

IDR did not reach a consensus on CAR vs. CT.  The IDR Chairs adopted both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts.

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)?

Adoption call: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, others.


## 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.

Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/

Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/

Authors:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil@cisco.com)
[missing]

Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/

Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/

Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
[missing]

Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
[missing]

Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
[missing]

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/

Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com 
[missing]

Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
[missing]

Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
[missing]

Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
[missing]

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/

2022-10-12
00 Susan Hares
# 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?

Adoption call:

Adoption call for CAR was held on 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but operationally different.

Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)


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

IDR did not reach a consensus on CAR vs. CT.  The IDR Chairs adopted both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts.

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)?

Adoption call: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, others.


## 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.

Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/

Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/

Authors:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil@cisco.com)
[missing]

Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/

Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/

Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
[missing]

Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
[missing]

Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
[missing]

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/

Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com 
[missing]

Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
[missing]

Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
[missing]

Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
[missing]

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/

2022-10-12
00 Susan Hares
2022-10-12
00 Susan Hares Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares
2022-10-12
00 Susan Hares
# 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?

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.

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/

2022-10-11
00 Susan Hares
2022-10-11
00 Susan Hares Notification list changed to luay.jalil@verizon.com, yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com, jul738@att.com, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, ketant.ietf@gmail.com, keyur@arrcus.com, rainsword.wang@huawei.com, im8327@att.com, rrokui@ciena.com
2022-09-06
00 Susan Hares This document now replaces draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car instead of None
2022-08-28
00 Swadesh Agrawal New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-00.txt
2022-08-28
00 (System) New version approved
2022-08-28
00 Swadesh Agrawal Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal
2022-08-28
00 Swadesh Agrawal Uploaded new revision