BGP Color-Aware Routing (CAR)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-16

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car and RFC 9871, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review.

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback.

** (as Joel noted in his GENART review) What’s the experiment to motivate the experimental status?  What does success look like?

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-15
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. Due to time constraints, I have only browsed this document, sorry about this light review.

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

Special thanks to Sue Hares for the shepherd's very detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status, it is also quite old, i.e., I wonder whether things have changed since April 2024.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 1

The letter "E" is used, but I failed to see its definition. Same for "E2" in section 1.1. Even saying 'E' = edge would help.

### Section 1.1

Unsure how to read `Where the network uses SRv6, the operators have agreed to trust each other's specification of SRv6 SIDs.` In the case of multiple operators, I would assume that *all* transport (bein plain IP or SR MPLS or SRv6) relies on a trust relationship. Unsure what is a specification of SRv6 SIDs, suggest using "allocation" ?

### Section 2.5

Should a reference be added for SRv6 Flex Algo ? Same later for "TEA".

### Section 2.9.2.1 (and possible other places)

Even if somehow obvious, please state the unit for the Length field.

### Section 2.9.2.3

s/a stack of 128-bit SRv6 SIDs/an ordered list of 128-bit SRv6 SIDs/ ? SRH is not about 'stack' of labels.

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this document. And if I take the word "transport" as defined in the terminology section then I agree with our TSVART reviewer Brian Trammell (Thanks Brian) that there are now issues surfaced with this document from transport protocol perspective.

However, Roman has very good comments and discuss points, I am supporting his discuss.

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 10.4.1 and 10.4.2.  How is the designated expert supposed to use this section? Both sections are titled as “Additional suggestions …”.  This suggests that that conformance is not required for allocating a code point. 

-- If conformance is not mandatory, what is the DE supposed to do with this guidance? 

-- If this is a mandatory criteria, please make the language clearer. 

** Section 10.4
  If the request comes from within the IETF,
  it should be documented in an Internet-Draft.

Can the WG please clarify the intent of this text.  I see there is similar language in RFC9256. 

Based on different interpretations of “within the IETF”, I see the following scenarios:
(1) IETF stream, WG document
(2) IETF stream, AD sponsored document
(3) no stream, I-D

Which subset of scenarios is being assumed by the “comes from the IETF”?

If it is only situation(1) or (2) apply, Section 2 of RFC7120 states that “The code points must be from a space designated as "RFC Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action".  Additionally, requests for early assignment of code points from a "Specification Required" registry are allowed if the specification will be published as an RFC.”  Therefore, if the intent is an RFC with a WG I-D, early allocation and permanent allocation is already possible without the above cited language.  AD sponsorship inherently assumes an RFC publication route.  The only residual case is for WGs to be requesting permanent allocations with an I-D that isn’t intended for publication.  Why would this occur?

If situation (3) is applicable and the intent is to allow permanent registration with an unadopted I-D, please be explicit.  It is in the grey area of whether this qualifies for “coming from the IETF”.  I will note that the forthcoming IANABIS WG is intended to resolve whether an I-D alone meet the threshold for “specification required”.  Different registries already allow this to occur without this text.  I acknowledge absent guiding text of some form, there is some community controversy on this position.

With John Scudder’s help, if the sole intent of this language is to be clear that unadopted I-Ds are accepted references for this specification required registry consider using the following instead:

NEW
An Internet-Draft that has not been adopted by an IETF working group is considered acceptable documentation. For adopted and AD-sponsored documents, the normal process documented in RFC 7120 and RFC 8126 should be followed

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review.

** (as Joel noted in his GENART review) What’s the experiment to motivate the experimental status?  What does success look like?

** Section 1.
  Color is a non-zero 32-bit numerical value
  associated with a network intent (low-cost, low-delay, avoid some
  resources, 5G network slice, etc.) as defined in Section 2.1 of
  [RFC9256].

Section 2.1 of RFC9256 says that a color is an integer, not a “numeric value” (“The color is an unsigned non-zero 32-bit integer value”).  Perhaps s/32-bit numerical value/non-zero 32-bit integer value/.  Same recommendation for Section 1.1 where color is defined again.

** Section 1
  BGP CAR fulfills the transport and VPN problem statement and
  requirements described in
  [I-D.hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color].

With due respect to this reference, what is the significance of meeting a set of requirements specified in an unadopted I-D?

** Section 1.1
Color re-mapping and filtering |
    |            | may happen at color domain boundaries.  Refer to  |
    |            | [I-D.hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color].

Why is the concept of color remapping being explained by an informative reference?  Which is an unadopted draft?  Is it important to implemented this specification?

** Section 2.5
  Local policy SHOULD provide additional control:

  *  A BGP color-aware route (E2, C1) with next hop N may be resolved
      over a color-aware route (N, C2):
…
  *  Route resolution may be driven by an egress node.

I’m having trouble understand the intent of this normative guidance on local policy providing additional control.  For example, is this saying that local policy could allow route resolution to be driven by an egress node, but is isn’t required?

** Section 2.5
  BGP CAR resolution in one network domain is independent of resolution
  in another domain.

What scopes or bounds a “network domain” here?

** Section 2.7
  BGP ADD-PATH [RFC7911] SHOULD be enabled for BGP CAR to signal
  multiple next hops through a transport RR.

Is there any guidance on when ADD-PATH SHOULD NOT be enabled?

** Section 2.9.2.1
    It is used for
      encoding a single label or a stack of labels for usage as
      described in [RFC8277].
…
      3-bit Rsrv and 1-bit S field SHOULD be set to zero on
      transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.

-- When would the Rsrv and S field be set to something other than 0?  What value should be used?

-- I’m not sure which section in RFC8277 is applicable but all instances have a mandatory value set (uses MUST to set either 1 or 0 depending on context)

** Section 2.9.3
  The prefix is unique across the administrative domains where BGP
  transport CAR is deployed.

Are the “administrative domains” referenced here the same as the “transport network”?

** Section 2.11.  Editorial

      An implementation SHOULD provide a knob that
      controls the RR unrecognized route type propagation behavior and
      possibly at the granularity of route type values allowed.

Consider if there is a less colloquial way to say “provide a knob”.

** Section 11.  Editorial.
  Extended communities (LCM-EC/Color-EC) carried in BGP CAR and Service
  routes MUST not be filtered, otherwise the desired intent will not be
  achieved.

IDnits reports:
  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
    or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
    use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
    mean).
   
    Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph:

** Clarity on domains

-- Section 1.1 says:
    | Color      | A set of nodes which share the same Color-to-    |
    | Domain      | Intent mapping, typically under single            |
    |            | administration.

-- Section 1.1 says:
    | Transport  | A network that comprises of multiple cooperating  |
    | Network    | domains managed by one or more operators, and    |
    |            | uses routing technologies such as IP, MPLS and    |
    |            | Segment Routing to forward packets for            |
    |            | connectivity and other services.  Where the      |
    |            | network uses SRv6, the operators have agreed to  |
    |            | trust each other's specification of SRv6 SIDs.    |

-- Section 11 says:
  Color assignments in a multi-domain network operating under a common
  or cooperating administrative control (i.e., a color domain) should
  be managed similar to transport layer IP addresses, and ensure a
  unique and non-conflicting color allocation across the different
  network domains in that color domain.  This is a logical best
  practice in a single color or administrative domain, which is the
  most typical deployment scenario.

These three sections appear to be providing qualifying scope on what constitutes a domain in the SR context.  To confirm, are they consistent with RFC8402, Section 8’s “By default, SR operates within a trusted domain.  Traffic MUST be filtered at the domain boundaries.”? The domain boundary specified in this document is the union of all coordinating operators who “have agreed to trust each other's specification of SRv6 SIDs”?  Is there a security consideration to mention about this dependency?  Also, perhaps something about negotiating that trust is outside the scope of this document?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Yoav Nir for his secdir review. 

old (and they have been addressed)
--------------------------
These are definitely nits: 

Section 1.1, abbreviations:  Alphabetize the list?  Please add NLRI,  (what is the 'I' in AFI/SAFI?)

Section 2.9:  In this section there is a mix of field definitions that either define the length of the field plus a description of the contents, or just a description of the contents.  For example, 2.9.1 key length states a 1 octet field etc. but 2.9.2.1 length states 'variable, MUST be a multiple of 3. Since there are ascii art figures of the actual packet fields, maybe this isn't confusing.  Consider listing the field length where it is reasonable.
-------------------
new.  (apologies)


Section 12, para 1:  This seems like a weird way to state that the security considerations and issues haven't changed.  If it is true that adding these new definitions, please explain why they don't change the security considerations.  (if the following paragraphs explain this situation, please reorganize them to make it more obvious).

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Yoav Nir for his secdir review. 

These are definitely nits: 

Section 1.1, abbreviations:  Alphabetize the list?  Please add NLRI,  (what is the 'I' in AFI/SAFI?)

Section 2.9:  In this section there is a mix of field definitions that either define the length of the field plus a description of the contents, or just a description of the contents.  For example, 2.9.1 key length states a 1 octet field etc. but 2.9.2.1 length states 'variable, MUST be a multiple of 3. Since there are ascii art figures of the actual packet fields, maybe this isn't confusing.  Consider listing the field length where it is reasonable.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-13
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S1, S1.1, S2.9.3, S2.9.5

* "Color is a 32-bit numerical value" ->
  "Color is a non-zero 32-bit numerical value"

  ... since RFC 9256 S2.1 is mentioned (it defines color as non-zero).

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, in the SAFI Values registry in the Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace/

two early registrations are to have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

Value: 83
Description: BGP CAR
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 84
Description: BGP VPN CAR
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry is to be created called the BGP CAR NLRI Types registry. The new registry will be created on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by [RFC8126]. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Type NLRI Type Reference
-----+---------+------------
0 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Color-Aware Route NLRI [ RFC-to-be ]
2 IP Prefix NLRI [ RFC-to-be ]
3-255 Unassigned

Third, a new registry is to be created called the BGP CAR NLRI TLV Types registry. The new registry will also be created in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined by [RFC8126]. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Type NLRI TLV Type Reference
-----+--------------+-----------
0 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Label TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
2 Label Index TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
3 SRv6 SID TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
4-64 Unassigned

Fourth, in the Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types registry in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

a single early registration will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

Sub-Type Value: 0x1b
Name: Local Color Mapping (LCM)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-02-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bruno.decraene@orange.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, dhrao@cisco.com, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, im8327@att.com, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, jgs@juniper.net, jul738@att.com, ketant.ietf@gmail.com, keyur@arrcus.com, luay.jalil@verizon.com, rainsword.wang@huawei.com, shares@ndzh.com, yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (BGP Color-Aware Routing (CAR)) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'BGP Color-Aware Routing (CAR)'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-02-13. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a BGP based routing solution to establish
  end-to-end intent-aware paths across a multi-domain transport
  network.  The transport network can span multiple service provider
  and customer network domains.  The BGP intent-aware paths can be used
  to steer traffic flows for service routes that need a specific
  intent.  This solution is called BGP Color-Aware Routing (BGP CAR).

  This document describes the routing framework and BGP extensions to
  enable intent-aware routing using the BGP CAR solution.  The solution
  defines two new BGP SAFIs (BGP CAR SAFI and BGP VPN CAR SAFI) for
  IPv4 and IPv6.  It also defines an extensible NLRI model for both
  SAFIs that allow multiple NLRI types to be defined for different use
  cases.  Each type of NLRI contains key and TLV based non-key fields
  for efficient encoding of different per-prefix information.  This
  specification defines two NLRI types, Color-Aware Route NLRI and IP
  Prefix NLRI.  It defines non-key TLV types for MPLS label stack,
  Label Index and SRv6 SIDs.  This solution also defines a new Local
  Color Mapping (LCM) Extended Community.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6098/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5562/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5563/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4844/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd's note to AD note:  Please review the security section first and
consider the issues for both CAR and CT.

## 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 (Dhruv Dhody)
  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)
  See github for issues for
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)

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) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
        a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
        b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
        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-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS (resolved, with note)
    Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only NITs (resolved) 
    Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs (resolved)

    SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin validation)
    to provide additional security without providing detailed solutions.
    The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the experimental draft.
    The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec (RFC8205) only included the AFI in the
    "hash" to resolve a problem (see sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1).  Section 2.2.1 includes
    the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6 (AFI=2). 
    Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR and CT) merely state
    that BGPsec could be extended.  It is beyond the scope of these individual drafts to raise
    the wider issue of BGPsec applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.

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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd's note to AD note:  Please review the security section first and
consider the issues for both CAR and CT.

## 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 (Dhruv Dhody)
  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)
  See github for issues for
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)

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) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
        a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
        b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
        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-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS (resolved, with note)
    Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only NITs (resolved) 
    Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs (resolved)

    SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin validation)
    to provide additional security without providing detailed solutions.
    The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the experimental draft.
    The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec (RFC8205) only included the AFI in the
    "hash" to resolve a problem (see sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1).  Section 2.2.1 includes
    the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6 (AFI=2). 
    Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR and CT) merely state
    that BGPsec could be extended.  It is beyond the scope of these individual drafts to raise
    the wider issue of BGPsec applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.

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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd's note to AD note:  Please review security section first and
consider the issues for both CAR and CT.

## 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 (Dhruv Dhody)
  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)
  See github for issues for
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)

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) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
        a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
        b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
        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-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS (resolved, with note)
    Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only NITs (resolved) 
    Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs (resolved)

    SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin validation)
    to provide additional security without providing detailed solutions.
    The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the experimental draft.
    The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec (RFC8205) only included the AFI in the
    "hash" to resolve a problem (see sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1).  Section 2.2.1 includes
    the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6 (AFI=2). 
    Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR and CT) merely state
    that BGPsec could be extended.  It is beyond the scope of these individual drafts to raise
    the wider issue of BGPsec applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.

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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd Action items - before publishing
1) Check on RFC9012
2) Review final copy shepherd's text (print copy)

AD note:  Please review Security section first, and
consider the issues for both CAR and CT.

## 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 (Dhruv Dhody)
  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)
  See github for issues for
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)

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) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
        a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
        b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
        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-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS (resolved, with note)
    Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only NITs (resolved) 
    Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs (resolved)

    SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin validation)
    to provide additional security without providing detailed solutions.
    The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the experimental draft.
    The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec (RFC8205) only included the AFI in the
    "hash" to resolve a problem (see sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1).  Section 2.2.1 includes
    the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6 (AFI=2). 
    Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR and CT) merely state
    that BGPsec could be extended.  It is beyond the scope of these individual drafts to raise
    the wider issue of BGPsec applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.

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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

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

Action items - before publishing
1) Run NITS - 2 nits (need DJ to resolve)
2) Check on RFC9012
2) Review final copy shepherd's text (print copy)

## 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 (Dhruv Dhody)
  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)
  See github for issues for
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)

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) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
        a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
        b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
        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-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS (resolved, with note)
    Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only NITs (resolved) 
    Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs (resolved)

    SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin validation)
    to provide additional security without providing detailed solutions.
    The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the experimental draft.
    The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec (RFC8205) only included the AFI in the
    "hash" to resolve a problem (see sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1).  Section 2.2.1 includes
    the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6 (AFI=2). 
    Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR and CT) merely state
    that BGPsec could be extended.  It is beyond the scope of these individual drafts to raise
    the wider issue of BGPsec applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.

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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

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

Action items - before publishing
1) Run NITS - 2 nits (need DJ to resolve)
2) Review final shepherd's text (print copy)

## 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 (Dhruv Dhody)
  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)
  See github for issues for
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)

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) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
        a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
        b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
        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-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS (resolved, with note)
    Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only NITs (resolved) 
    Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs (resolved)

    SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin validation)
    to provide additional security without providing detailed solutions.
    The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the experimental draft.
    The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec (RFC8205) only included the AFI in the
    "hash" to resolve a problem (see sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1).  Section 2.2.1 includes
    the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6 (AFI=2). 
    Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR and CT) merely state
    that BGPsec could be extended.  It is beyond the scope of these individual drafts to raise
    the wider issue of BGPsec applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.

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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

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

Action items - before publishing
1) Run NITS
2) Review final shepherd's text (print copy)

## 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 (Dhruv Dhody)
  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)
  See github for issues for
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)

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) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
        a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
        b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
        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-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS (resolved, with note)
    Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only NITs (resolved) 
    Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs (resolved)

    SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin validation)
    to provide additional security without providing detailed solutions.
    The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the experimental draft.
    The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec (RFC8205) only included the AFI in the
    "hash" to resolve a problem (see sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1).  Section 2.2.1 includes
    the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6 (AFI=2). 
    Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR and CT) merely state
    that BGPsec could be extended.  It is beyond the scope of these individual drafts to raise
    the wider issue of BGPsec applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.

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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

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

Action items - before publishing
1) Final check on Shepherd's github issues
2) SEC-DIR comments review update
3) Run NITS

## 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 (Dhruv Dhody)
  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)
  See github for issues for
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)

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) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
        a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
        b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
        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-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on the right track.
    Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS (resolved, with note)
    Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only NITs (resolved) 
    Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs (resolved)

    SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin validation)
    to provide additional security without providing detailed solutions.
    The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the experimental draft.
    The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec (RFC8205) only included the AFI in the
    "hash" to resolve a problem (see sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1).  Section 2.2.1 includes
    the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6 (AFI=2). 
    Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR and CT) merely state
    that BGPsec could be extended.  It is beyond the scope of these individual drafts to raise
    the wider issue of BGPsec applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.

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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

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

Action items - before publishing
1) Final check on Shepherd's github issues
2) SEC-DIR comments review update
3) Run NITS

## 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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# 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:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: 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/

# 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/

# 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/