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 |