Skip to main content

BGP CT - Adaptation to SRv6 dataplane
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-01-16
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Still waiting for spring draft.

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

Still waiting for spring draft.

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps:
1) Authors must get spring draft published (draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids/)
2) Authors must resolve the RTG-DIR and SEC-DIR review,
2) Get Xiahou Xu - IPR statement
2) Get implementation report update for srv6

## 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?

Post 1st WLC - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct was broken into 3 drafts
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr

Initial(-00) publication date of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 is 10/20/2023 (-00).

Publication Request:
[TBD]
---
Post 2nd WG LC shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6-02
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iwFeecKN-DwdjFG3X0bAhnxO2Sw/

The information below is from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
--------
1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/
extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/
Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/
status: No consensus reached

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC

Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/
---------
Adoption call results: (as part of status)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/

Adoption call: Time: 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/

This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: 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.

Presentations were given from IETF-108 to IETF-113, and
the IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

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 CAR commenting on the CT draft. (Just as CT authors commented on CAR draft.)
In many 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.

During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/

Robert Raszuk raised a concern regarding the splitting of the
CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6,
and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr
being a WG draft.  The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
since version -09m so Robert's concerns about being surprised as
WG draft was not justified.  However, it does point to the value of
the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft.

Dependencies on Spring:
a) Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document
draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, the WG
shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof. 

Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts,
and sent comments to the authors. CT authors updated their drafts.

Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT.
A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft.
This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for
SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol.

## Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker)
See draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct - early reviews.
The following early reviews requested for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR. 
[reviews pending on 3/28/2024]

Instructions for SEC-DIR: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft.
Intent tracks service data (customer data) and places it over service quality tunnels.
In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some
abstract qualities of the network. My understanding is that some people have questions
SRv6 security.  It would be good to provide feedback that differentiates between the
general SRv6 security and this draft's additional issues.

Instructions for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having
intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels)
that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. 
Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text.


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 Alston 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)?

    Implementation report:
    https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
 
    Implementation of CT:  Juniper, Freertg
    Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD)


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.

  Informal Cross Reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 last call:

  Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
  Received reviews from PCE: Dhruv Dhody
  (need link) 
  Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana, Joel Halpern)
    The following drafts were in the option queue:
      draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
      draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6)

  Nothing was received from BESS.

  Awaiting Early reviews from: RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR.

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.

  There are no formal expert review criteria for this document.

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]?

  There are no Yang modules in this 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.

  There are no Yang modules in this document.

## 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?
 
  See github for the shepherd's + WG chair interactions
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues)

Checks completed:
  1) Pre-adoption review 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-ct-27 
      (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues)
  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/CT-WGLC and                     
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of
          technical issues.
        d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR)
          open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved]
        b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved]
        c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] 
        b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending]
        c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments

    7) Current waiting status:
        a) Response from IANA review of -04
        b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check
        c) Discussion of SRv6 security issues at IETF-119 with RTG-AD
        d) 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?
    For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed?  See Early Review comments.
   
    For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

    3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct (since base draft)
    SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer
    (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69)
    Pending reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct:
      TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion
    Pending early reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6:
      RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, TSV-DIR, and IANA.

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?

    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.

    Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

2nd WG LC -26 [-27]
Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/

Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/

Authors:
Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/

Israel Means (israel.means@att.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/

Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/

Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/

Contributors:
Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/

Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/

Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/

Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/

Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/

Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/

Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27]
Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11]
before 1st WG LC.
Adoption IPR Statement: [missing from adoption].

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.)

    pending: NIT in abstract, and NIT in two references.
    see github issue (70): https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70

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

    All Normative references are necessary. 
    One normative reference is not an RFC [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct], but it is being forwarded at the
    same time as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6.

    One normative reference is not a WG document:draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04.
    draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is in the adoption queue for the Spring WG,
    and the Spring Chairs have been informed about the dependency. 

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 normative references are RFCs, WG drafts, 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.

  RFC3967 states: "There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may
  need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity
  level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of
  [RFC2026]."

  draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is an individual draft
  with a status of being suggested for a proposed standard. 

  The spirit of the text indicates I should mention this fact.
  It is not clear this document belongs in a "downref" registry.  Am I wrong?
   

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?

  RFC3967 states: "There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may
  need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity
  level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of
  [RFC2026]."

  draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is an individual draft
  with the tatus of being suggested for a proposed standard in the Spring Wg.
  The Spring WG has this draft in its adoption queue.

  Plan for this draft's functions: 
  If the draft is adopted, then the functionality will remain in the draft as draft-ietf-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids.
  If the draft is not adopted, the functionality will need to be added to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6. 

  The spirit of the text indicates I should mention this fact.
  It is not clear it is a "downref" registry.  Am I wrong?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No changes to existing RFCs. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

    No IANA requests are made.

    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. yes, confirmed 

    Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. 
    Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed.

    [pending] Due to the complexity of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ief-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
    I have asked IANA to review both.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2025-01-16
06 Susan Hares Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2025-01-16
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Still waiting for spring draft.

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

Still waiting for spring draft.

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps:
1) Get Xiahou Xu - IPR statement
2) Get implementation report update for srv6
3) Get Early Reviews - RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, TSV-DIR, IANA
4) Load Early reviews into github + IDR Wiki page
5) Resolve issues

## 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?

Post 1st WLC - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct was broken into 3 drafts
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr

Initial(-00) publication date of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 is 10/20/2023 (-00).

Publication Request:
[TBD]
---
Post 2nd WG LC shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6-02
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iwFeecKN-DwdjFG3X0bAhnxO2Sw/

The information below is from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
--------
1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/
extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/
Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/
status: No consensus reached

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC

Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/
---------
Adoption call results: (as part of status)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/

Adoption call: Time: 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/

This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: 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.

Presentations were given from IETF-108 to IETF-113, and
the IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

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 CAR commenting on the CT draft. (Just as CT authors commented on CAR draft.)
In many 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.

During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/

Robert Raszuk raised a concern regarding the splitting of the
CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6,
and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr
being a WG draft.  The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
since version -09m so Robert's concerns about being surprised as
WG draft was not justified.  However, it does point to the value of
the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft.

Dependencies on Spring:
a) Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document
draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, the WG
shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof. 

Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts,
and sent comments to the authors. CT authors updated their drafts.

Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT.
A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft.
This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for
SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol.

## Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker)
See draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct - early reviews.
The following early reviews requested for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR. 
[reviews pending on 3/28/2024]

Instructions for SEC-DIR: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft.
Intent tracks service data (customer data) and places it over service quality tunnels.
In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some
abstract qualities of the network. My understanding is that some people have questions
SRv6 security.  It would be good to provide feedback that differentiates between the
general SRv6 security and this draft's additional issues.

Instructions for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having
intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels)
that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. 
Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text.


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 Alston 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)?

    Implementation report:
    https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
 
    Implementation of CT:  Juniper, Freertg
    Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD)


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.

  Informal Cross Reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 last call:

  Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
  Received reviews from PCE: Dhruv Dhody
  (need link) 
  Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana, Joel Halpern)
    The following drafts were in the option queue:
      draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
      draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6)

  Nothing was received from BESS.

  Awaiting Early reviews from: RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR.

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.

  There are no formal expert review criteria for this document.

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]?

  There are no Yang modules in this 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.

  There are no Yang modules in this document.

## 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?
 
  See github for the shepherd's + WG chair interactions
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues)

Checks completed:
  1) Pre-adoption review 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-ct-27 
      (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues)
  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/CT-WGLC and                     
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of
          technical issues.
        d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR)
          open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved]
        b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved]
        c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] 
        b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending]
        c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments

    7) Current waiting status:
        a) Response from IANA review of -04
        b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check
        c) Discussion of SRv6 security issues at IETF-119 with RTG-AD
        d) 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?
    For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed?  See Early Review comments.
   
    For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

    3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct (since base draft)
    SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer
    (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69)
    Pending reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct:
      TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion
    Pending early reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6:
      RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, TSV-DIR, and IANA.

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?

    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.

    Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

2nd WG LC -26 [-27]
Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/

Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/

Authors:
Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/

Israel Means (israel.means@att.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/

Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/

Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/

Contributors:
Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/

Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/

Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/

Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/

Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/

Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/

Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27]
Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11]
before 1st WG LC.
Adoption IPR Statement: [missing from adoption].

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.)

    pending: NIT in abstract, and NIT in two references.
    see github issue (70): https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70

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

    All Normative references are necessary. 
    One normative reference is not an RFC [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct], but it is being forwarded at the
    same time as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6.

    One normative reference is not a WG document:draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04.
    draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is in the adoption queue for the Spring WG,
    and the Spring Chairs have been informed about the dependency. 

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 normative references are RFCs, WG drafts, 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.

  RFC3967 states: "There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may
  need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity
  level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of
  [RFC2026]."

  draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is an individual draft
  with a status of being suggested for a proposed standard. 

  The spirit of the text indicates I should mention this fact.
  It is not clear this document belongs in a "downref" registry.  Am I wrong?
   

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?

  RFC3967 states: "There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may
  need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity
  level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of
  [RFC2026]."

  draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is an individual draft
  with the tatus of being suggested for a proposed standard in the Spring Wg.
  The Spring WG has this draft in its adoption queue.

  Plan for this draft's functions: 
  If the draft is adopted, then the functionality will remain in the draft as draft-ietf-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids.
  If the draft is not adopted, the functionality will need to be added to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6. 

  The spirit of the text indicates I should mention this fact.
  It is not clear it is a "downref" registry.  Am I wrong?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No changes to existing RFCs. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

    No IANA requests are made.

    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. yes, confirmed 

    Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. 
    Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed.

    [pending] Due to the complexity of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ief-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
    I have asked IANA to review both.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-12-23
06 Magnus Nyström Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. Sent review to list.
2024-12-12
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nyström
2024-12-12
06 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Catherine Meadows was rejected
2024-11-09
06 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-06.txt
2024-11-09
06 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai)
2024-11-09
06 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai Uploaded new revision
2024-11-04
05 (System) Document has expired
2024-08-02
05 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Early review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn'
2024-08-02
05 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Radia Perlman was withdrawn
2024-05-24
05 Matthew Bocci Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Matthew Bocci. Sent review to list.
2024-05-15
05 Nagendra Nainar Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-05-15
05 Nagendra Nainar Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar.
2024-05-03
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2024-05-01
05 Carlos Pignataro Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar
2024-04-29
05 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Matthew Bocci
2024-04-26
05 Susan Hares Requested Early review by SECDIR
2024-04-26
05 Susan Hares Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2024-04-26
05 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2024-04-25
05 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-05.txt
2024-04-25
05 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai)
2024-04-25
05 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai Uploaded new revision
2024-04-23
04 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-04.txt
2024-04-23
04 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai)
2024-04-23
04 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai Uploaded new revision
2024-04-22
03 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick. Sent review to list.
2024-03-28
03 Joseph Touch Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Touch. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-03-28
03 Joseph Touch Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Touch.
2024-03-27
03 Nagendra Nainar Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar. Sent review to list.
2024-03-21
03 Carlos Pignataro Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar
2024-03-14
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2024-03-13
03 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick
2024-03-13
03 Magnus Westerlund Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch
2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps: …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps:
1) Get Xiahou Xu - IPR statement
2) Get implementation report update for srv6
3) Get Early Reviews - RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, TSV-DIR, IANA
4) Load Early reviews into github + IDR Wiki page
5) Resolve issues

## 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?

Post 1st WLC - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct was broken into 3 drafts
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr

Initial(-00) publication date of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 is 10/20/2023 (-00).

Publication Request:
[TBD]
---
Post 2nd WG LC shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6-02
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iwFeecKN-DwdjFG3X0bAhnxO2Sw/

The information below is from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
--------
1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/
extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/
Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/
status: No consensus reached

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC

Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/
---------
Adoption call results: (as part of status)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/

Adoption call: Time: 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/

This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: 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.

Presentations were given from IETF-108 to IETF-113, and
the IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

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 CAR commenting on the CT draft. (Just as CT authors commented on CAR draft.)
In many 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.

During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/

Robert Raszuk raised a concern regarding the splitting of the
CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6,
and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr
being a WG draft.  The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
since version -09m so Robert's concerns about being surprised as
WG draft was not justified.  However, it does point to the value of
the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft.

Dependencies on Spring:
a) Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document
draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, the WG
shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof. 

Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts,
and sent comments to the authors. CT authors updated their drafts.

Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT.
A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft.
This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for
SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol.

## Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker)
See draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct - early reviews.
The following early reviews requested for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR. 
[reviews pending on 3/28/2024]

Instructions for SEC-DIR: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft.
Intent tracks service data (customer data) and places it over service quality tunnels.
In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some
abstract qualities of the network. My understanding is that some people have questions
SRv6 security.  It would be good to provide feedback that differentiates between the
general SRv6 security and this draft's additional issues.

Instructions for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having
intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels)
that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. 
Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text.


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 Alston 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)?

    Implementation report:
    https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
 
    Implementation of CT:  Juniper, Freertg
    Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD)


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.

  Informal Cross Reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 last call:

  Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
  Received reviews from PCE: Dhruv Dhody
  (need link) 
  Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana, Joel Halpern)
    The following drafts were in the option queue:
      draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
      draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6)

  Nothing was received from BESS.

  Awaiting Early reviews from: RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR.

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.

  There are no formal expert review criteria for this document.

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]?

  There are no Yang modules in this 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.

  There are no Yang modules in this document.

## 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?
 
  See github for the shepherd's + WG chair interactions
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues)

Checks completed:
  1) Pre-adoption review 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-ct-27 
      (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues)
  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/CT-WGLC and                     
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of
          technical issues.
        d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR)
          open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved]
        b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved]
        c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] 
        b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending]
        c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments

    7) Current waiting status:
        a) Response from IANA review of -04
        b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check
        c) Discussion of SRv6 security issues at IETF-119 with RTG-AD
        d) 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?
    For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed?  See Early Review comments.
   
    For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

    3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct (since base draft)
    SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer
    (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69)
    Pending reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct:
      TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion
    Pending early reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6:
      RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, TSV-DIR, and IANA.

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?

    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.

    Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

2nd WG LC -26 [-27]
Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/

Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/

Authors:
Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/

Israel Means (israel.means@att.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/

Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/

Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/

Contributors:
Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/

Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/

Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/

Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/

Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/

Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/

Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27]
Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11]
before 1st WG LC.
Adoption IPR Statement: [missing from adoption].

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.)

    pending: NIT in abstract, and NIT in two references.
    see github issue (70): https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70

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

    All Normative references are necessary. 
    One normative reference is not an RFC [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct], but it is being forwarded at the
    same time as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6.

    One normative reference is not a WG document:draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04.
    draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is in the adoption queue for the Spring WG,
    and the Spring Chairs have been informed about the dependency. 

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 normative references are RFCs, WG drafts, 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.

  RFC3967 states: "There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may
  need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity
  level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of
  [RFC2026]."

  draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is an individual draft
  with a status of being suggested for a proposed standard. 

  The spirit of the text indicates I should mention this fact.
  It is not clear this document belongs in a "downref" registry.  Am I wrong?
   

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?

  RFC3967 states: "There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may
  need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity
  level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of
  [RFC2026]."

  draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids is an individual draft
  with the tatus of being suggested for a proposed standard in the Spring Wg.
  The Spring WG has this draft in its adoption queue.

  Plan for this draft's functions: 
  If the draft is adopted, then the functionality will remain in the draft as draft-ietf-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids.
  If the draft is not adopted, the functionality will need to be added to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6. 

  The spirit of the text indicates I should mention this fact.
  It is not clear it is a "downref" registry.  Am I wrong?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No changes to existing RFCs. 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

    No IANA requests are made.

    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. yes, confirmed 

    Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. 
    Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed.

    [pending] Due to the complexity of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ief-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
    I have asked IANA to review both.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps: …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps: Shepherd general write-up, CT editors/Authors review, IDR WG Review,

## 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?

Post 1st WLC - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct was broken into 3 drafts
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr

Initial(-00) publication date of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 is 10/20/2023 (-00).

Publication Request:
[TBD]
---
Post 2nd WG LC shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6-02
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iwFeecKN-DwdjFG3X0bAhnxO2Sw/

The information below is from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
--------
1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/
extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/
Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/
status: No consensus reached

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC

Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/
---------
Adoption call results: (as part of status)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/

Adoption call: Time: 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/

This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: 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.

Presentations were given from IETF-108 to IETF-113, and
the IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

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 CAR commenting on the CT draft. (Just as CT authors commented on CAR draft.)
In many 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.

During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/

Robert Raszuk raised a concern regarding the splitting of the
CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6,
and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr
being a WG draft.  The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
since version -09m so Robert's concerns about being surprised as
WG draft was not justified.  However, it does point to the value of
the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft.

Dependencies on Spring:
a) Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document
draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, the WG
shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof. 

Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts,
and sent comments to the authors. CT authors updated their drafts.

Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT.
A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft.
This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for
SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol.

## Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker)
See draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct - early reviews.
The following early reviews requested for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR. 
[reviews pending on 3/28/2024]

Instructions for SEC-DIR: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft.
Intent tracks service data (customer data) and places it over service quality tunnels.
In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some
abstract qualities of the network. My understanding is that some people have questions
SRv6 security.  It would be good to provide feedback that differentiates between the
general SRv6 security and this draft's additional issues.

Instructions for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having
intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels)
that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. 
Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text.


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 Alston 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)?

    Implementation report:
    https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
 
    Implementation of CT:  Juniper, Freertg
    Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD)


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.

  Informal Cross Reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 last call:

  Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
  Received reviews from PCE: Dhruv Dhody
  (need link) 
  Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana, Joel Halpern)
    The following drafts were in the option queue:
      draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
      draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6)

  Nothing was received from BESS.

  Awaiting Early reviews from: RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR.

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.

  There are no formal expert review criteria for this document.

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]?

  There are no Yang modules in this 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.

  There are no Yang modules in this document.

## 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?
 
  See github for the shepherd's + WG chair interactions
  (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues)

Checks completed:
  1) Pre-adoption review 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-ct-27 
      (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues)
  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/CT-WGLC and                     
      https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of
          technical issues.
        d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR)
          open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved]
        b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved]
        c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] 
        b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending]
        c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments

    7) Current waiting status:
        a) Response from IANA review of -04
        b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check
        c) Discussion of SRv6 security issues at IETF-119 with RTG-AD
        d) 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?
    For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed?  See Early Review comments.
   
    For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

    3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct (since base draft)
    SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer
    (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69)
    Pending reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct:
      TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion
    Pending early reviews for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6:
      RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, TSV-DIR, and IANA.

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?

    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.

    Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

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

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

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares Requested Early review by TSVART
2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares Requested Early review by SECDIR
2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps: …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps: Shepherd general write-up, CT editors/Authors review, IDR WG Review,

## 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?

Post 1st WLC - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct was broken into 3 drafts
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr

Initial(-00) publication date of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 is 10/20/2023 (-00).

Publication Request:
[TBD]
---
Post 2nd WG LC shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6-02
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iwFeecKN-DwdjFG3X0bAhnxO2Sw/

The information below is from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
--------
1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/
extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/
Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/
status: No consensus reached

The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC

Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/
---------
Adoption call results: (as part of status)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/

Adoption call: Time: 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/

This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

Note: 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.

Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(​https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)

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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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.

A Concern was raised by Robert Raszuk regarding the splitting of the
CAR draft into 3 parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6,
and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr).  He objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr
being a WG draft.  The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
since version -09.  Due to Robert's concerns about being surprised as
WG draft were not justified.  However, it does point to the value of
the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/

Dependencies on Spring:
a) Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document
draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, the WG
shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof. 

b)

Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT.
A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft.
This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for
SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

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

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

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps: …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]

Shepherd status: initial version  of shepherd
Next steps: Shepherd general write-up, CT editors/Authors review, IDR WG Review,

## 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?

Post 1st WLC - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct was broken into 3 drafts
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and
draft-ietf-idr-
Initial publication date:

CTSRv6
Publication Request:

Post 2nd WG LC shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srv6-02
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iwFeecKN-DwdjFG3X0bAhnxO2Sw/



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

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

Note: The IDR chairs agree with 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.

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)

2nd WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/



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

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

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

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

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares
2024-03-12
03 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

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

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

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

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

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-04
03 Natrajan Venkataraman New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03.txt
2024-03-04
03 (System) New version approved
2024-03-04
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai , Natrajan Venkataraman
2024-03-04
03 Natrajan Venkataraman Uploaded new revision
2024-02-22
Tess Chapeta Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
2024-02-22
Tess Chapeta Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6
2024-02-16
02 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-02-16
02 Susan Hares Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2024-02-16
02 Natrajan Venkataraman New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-02.txt
2024-02-16
02 Natrajan Venkataraman New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Natrajan Venkataraman)
2024-02-16
02 Natrajan Venkataraman Uploaded new revision
2024-01-28
01 Natrajan Venkataraman New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-01.txt
2024-01-28
01 Natrajan Venkataraman New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Natrajan Venkataraman)
2024-01-28
01 Natrajan Venkataraman Uploaded new revision
2023-10-20
00 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-00.txt
2023-10-20
00 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai)
2023-10-20
00 Kaliraj Vairavakkalai Uploaded new revision