Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6

# 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/

Back