Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) Send Hold Timer
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-15

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer and RFC 9687, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks for great Shepherd's write up. This specification looks good to from transport protocol point of views (yeah you drop TCP connections :-)).

[Ballot comment]
One small comment:

(optionally) sends a NOTIFICATION message with the BGP Error Code "Send Hold Timer Expired" if the local system can determine that doing so will not delay the following actions in this paragraph,

Wouldn't this be the case by definition?

Perhaps "not unreasonably delay" or "not significantly delay" ?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document - this feels like it should not be needed, but now that I understand the failure mode, I realize that I've seen this failure mode myself in production (or at least something that looked identical - debugging this is hard!)

Also much thanks to Victor Kuarsingh for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-13-opsdir-lc-kuarsingh-2024-07-14/) and to the authors for responding.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for all the great work by the WG embraced within this document.
I have been following the elaborative discussions on the email lists.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document. I have only two comments (feel free to ignore).

As RFC 4271 has been updated by several RFCs, I am trusting the authors that this update is compatible with all these update, e.g., in section 3.2 there is an event 29 that should not overwrite an event from the previous update RFCs.

I think that readers would welcome a short description in the introduction on how the mechanism works in addition to the FSM update.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for all your work on this document. I have one comment, related to the use of the “OLD/NEW” idiom. Since the conceit with this idiom is that we are doing a patch to the underlying document, this particular patch:

```
  NEW

  |  SendHoldTime is an FSM attribute that stores the initial value for
  |  the SendHoldTimer.  If SendHoldTime is non-zero then it MUST be
  |  greater than the value of HoldTime, see Section 5 for suggested
  |  default values.
```

strictly speaking means that the reader should go look in section 5 of RFC 4271 for the suggested default values. Of course, what you really mean is section 5 of the present document. I don’t think this is likely to confuse any reasonable reader. Still, it would be cleaner to move the reference to section 5 outside of the “NEW” block, or otherwise disambiguate.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for all your work on this document. I have one comment, related to the use of the “OLD/NEW” idiom. Since the conceit with this idiom is that we were doing a patch to the underlying document, this particular patch:

```
  NEW

  |  SendHoldTime is an FSM attribute that stores the initial value for
  |  the SendHoldTimer.  If SendHoldTime is non-zero then it MUST be
  |  greater than the value of HoldTime, see Section 5 for suggested
  |  default values.
```

strictly speaking means that the reader should go look in section 5 of RFC 4271 for the suggested default values. Of course, what you really mean is section 5 of the present document. I don’t think this is likely to confuse any reasonable reader. Still, it would be cleaner to move the reference to section 5 outside of the “NEW” block, or otherwise disambiguate.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

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

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the BGP Error (Notification) Codes registry in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/

the early allocation for:

Value: 8
Name: Send Hold Timer Expired

will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-07-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, jhaas@pfrc.org, rdd@cert.org, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) Send Hold Timer) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) Send
Hold Timer'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-07-29. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines the SendHoldtimer, along with the
  SendHoldTimer_Expires event, for the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
  Finite State Machine (FSM).  Implementation of the SendHoldTimer
  helps overcome situations where a BGP connection is not terminated
  after the local system detects that the remote system is not
  processing BGP messages.  This document specifies that the local
  system should close the BGP connection and not solely rely on the
  remote system for connection closure when the SendHoldTimer expires.
  This document updates RFC4271.





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



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/
- Some late discussion regarding whether the feature can operate in "warning
  only" mode rather than resetting the BGP connect didn't elicit
  enough support to make this change.  It is the shepherd's opinion that
  such a deviation from the normative behaviors is an implementation choice
  that can be supported by configuration, but doesn't have the support
  of the Working Group to make a normative operational consideration.
- Discussions about maintenance procedures for the BGP FSM have started
  several background activities discussing how this should be done.
  For purposes of this draft, the Chairs have concluded that the appended
  action for resetting the new SendHoldTimer on transitions out of the
  Established state are adequately covered by the existing "release all
  BGP resources" action in the state machine.

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snijders:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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]).

The definition of the new error code has been completed.  As noted in
RFC 4271, section 6.5, an error subcode of unspecific (0) is appropriate
when there are no more specific subcodes.  This feature has symmetry to
the holdtimer feature which doesn't require anything more specific.

IDR currently doesn't have a setup a process for maintaining the
enumerated FSM code points. draft-hhp-idr-bgp-fsm-iana has been
proposed to create a registry for this coordination.

It is the intent of the IDR Chairs to assign FSM elements from that
draft until the creation of its IANA registry.

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/
- Some late discussion regarding whether the feature can operate in "warning
  only" mode rather than resetting the BGP connect didn't elicit
  enough support to make this change.  It is the shepherd's opinion that
  such a deviation from the normative behaviors is an implementation choice
  that can be supported by configuration, but doesn't have the support
  of the Working Group to make a normative operational consideration.
- Discussions about maintenance procedures for the BGP FSM have started
  several background activities discussing how this should be done.
  For purposes of this draft, the Chairs have concluded that the appended
  action for resetting the new SendHoldTimer on transitions out of the
  Established state are adequately covered by the existing "release all
  BGP resources" action in the state machine.

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snijder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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]).

The definition of the new error code has been completed.  As noted in
RFC 4271, section 6.5, an error subcode of unspecific (0) is appropriate
when there are no more specific subcodes.  This feature has symmetry to
the holdtimer feature which doesn't require anything more specific.

IDR currently doesn't have a setup a process for maintaining the
enumerated FSM code points. draft-hhp-idr-bgp-fsm-iana has been
proposed to create a registry for this coordination.

It is the intent of the IDR Chairs to assign FSM elements from that
draft until the creation of its IANA registry.

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/
- Some late discussion regarding whether the feature can operate in "warning
  only" mode rather than resetting the BGP connect didn't elicit
  enough support to make this change.  It is the shepherd's opinion that
  such a deviation from the normative behaviors is an implementation choice
  that can be supported by configuration, but doesn't have the support
  of the Working Group to make a normative operational consideration.
- Discussions about maintenance procedures for the BGP FSM have started
  several background activities discussing how this should be done.
  For purposes of this draft, the Chairs have concluded that the appended
  action for resetting the new SendHoldTimer on transitions out of the
  Established state are adequately covered by the existing "release all
  BGP resources" action in the state machine.

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snijder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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]).

The definition of the new error code has been completed.  As noted in
RFC 4271, section 6.5, an error subcode of unspecific (0) is appropriate
when there are no more specific subcodes.  This feature has symmetry to
the holdtimer feature which doesn't require anything more specific.

IDR currently doesn't have a setup a process for maintaining the
enumerated FSM code points. draft-hhp-idr-bgp-fsm-iana has been
proposed to create a registry for this coordination.

It is the intent of the IDR Chairs to assign FSM elements from that
draft until the creation of its IANA registry.

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snijder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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]).

The definition of the new error code has been completed.  As noted in
RFC 4271, section 6.5, an error subcode of unspecific (0) is appropriate
when there are no more specific subcodes.  This feature has symmetry to
the holdtimer feature which doesn't require anything more specific.

IDR currently doesn't have a setup a process for maintaining the
enumerated FSM code points. draft-hhp-idr-bgp-fsm-iana has been
proposed to create a registry for this coordination.

It is the intent of the IDR Chairs to assign FSM elements from that
draft until the creation of its IANA registry.

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snijder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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]).

The definition of the new error code has been completed.  As noted in
RFC 4271, section 6.5, an error subcode of unspecific (0) is appropriate
when there are no more specific subcodes.  This feature has symmetry to
the holdtimer feature which doesn't require anything more specific.

IDR hasn't setup a process for maintaining the enumerated FSM code points. 
This point will need to be resolved prior to publication.  Right now the
draft is squatting on the "next numbers".

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
: *This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snijder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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]).

The definition of the new error code has been completed.  As noted in
RFC 4271, section 6.5, an error subcode of unspecific (0) is appropriate
when there are no more specific subcodes.  This feature has symmetry to
the holdtimer feature which doesn't require anything more specific.

IDR hasn't setup a process for maintaining the enumerated FSM code points. 
This point will need to be resolved prior to publication.  Right now the
draft is squatting on the "next numbers".

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
: *This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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]).

The definition of the new error code has been completed.  As noted in
RFC 4271, section 6.5, an error subcode of unspecific (0) is appropriate
when there are no more specific subcodes.  This feature has symmetry to
the holdtimer feature which doesn't require anything more specific.

IDR hasn't setup a process for maintaining the enumerated FSM code points. 
This point will need to be resolved prior to publication.  Right now the
draft is squatting on the "next numbers".

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
: *This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

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

Review of the IANA entry shows that a error subcodes registry for the new
error code type is required.

IDR hasn't setup a process for maintaining the enumerated FSM code points. 
This point will need to be resolved prior to publication.  Right now the
draft is squatting on the "next numbers".

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
: *This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

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

Review of the IANA entry shows that a error subcodes registry for the new
error code type is required.

: 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.

N/A

: # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
: *This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
:
: ## 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 a broad agreement?

This draft received significant commentary over its lifetime from original
submission to Working Group last call.

Since this draft is of significant interest to the Internet operator community,
it received significant scrutiny and support from participants that do not
traditionally comment on IDR drafts.  This commentary was not exclusively to
register support for the adoption or last call of the draft, but also had
several participants who do not regularly do work in IDR offer technical
commentary and review.

Participation by list membership that is more generally active was also quite
reasonable.

Adoption thread, February 2023:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4yZZF5DN-iTnJ-3XEIJ8TnBDsfQ/
- Supportive: Gert Doering, Job Snijders (author), Mikael Abrahamsson, Ben Cox (author), Ben Maddison, Jared Mauch, Claudio Jeker, Jeff Tantsura, Gyan Mishra,
- Concerns: Tom Petch, Randy Bush (?)
- Not supportive: Robert Raszuk

The draft had several presentations including IETF 116, Interim April 2023,
Interim 1/29/2024.

Working Group last call was requested in December 2023.

Working Group last call started March 22, 2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ikZPV6Jg-DdhDsDaD6BqwTqZ1kA/
extended:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0cTJUYZpwAIdWJpBnEkyMPYgmsU/

Support for Working Group last call on version -03:
Support: Claudio Jeker, Mikael Abrahamsson, Maria Matejka, Donatas Abraitis,
Tom Strickx, Acee Lindem, Gert Doering, Marco Marzetti, William McCall,
Ben Maddison, Joel Jaeggli, Rob Shakir, Gyan Mishra, Heasley, Martin Pels,
Paolo Lucente,

Does not support: Robert Raszuk,

Concerns: Tom Petch on FSM.  Text was added, but doesn't match existing rfc 4271 styling.

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

During Working Group adoption, concerns were raised whether this draft
sufficiently addressed the issue at hand.  A separate proposal,
draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout, was raised to address the problem space.  That
draft was eventually polled separately for adoption and did not have sufficient
support to adopt.  At a later point, the authors of tcp-user-timeout asked
whether their work could be merged into the sendholdtimer work, but the
consensus was that it would not be merged.

A number of discussion points were raised and reached rough consensus:

- The draft makes changes vs. the BGP finite state machine.  The complexity of
  its potential impact was raised early on by Tom Petch (March 2023) and again
  during Working Group last call.  While some text had been added to address the
  FSM issues, the form of the text diverges from the style in RFC 4271, Section 8.
  The consensus was that while this was indeed a style variance, the text
  addressed the concerns about the FSM functionality for the feature.
- A smaller FSM issue was that the feature was originally specified as status:
  mandatory in the FSM text.  The discussion among the IDR chairs is that BGP
  extension RFCs should not make new FSM variables or events "mandatory".  A key
  criterion for mandatory or not is whether the protocol change would have
  non-backward compatible impacts on an otherwise compliant implementation.
  This discussion point will likely come up again as IDR considers moving RFC 4271
  to Full Standard.

  The authors agreed to make the status optional, although with some hesitance
  as they see this as fixing a defect in the original BGP FSM.
- A specific sub-thread discussed whether this feature should not be used when
  the negotiated BGP HoldTime is zero.  The consensus was that it was not in the
  spirit of zero HoldTime for this feature to be used.
- A final point is when is the sendholdtimer reset.  As sepcified, it's when a
  BGP message is sent.  However, implementors have responded that this is not
  necessarily on a BGP message boundary, but on success of a send() operation in
  the TCP stack.  Consensus was that since the termination of the BGP session
  using this feature is, effecitvely, a local matter, implementations have some
  freedom as to when to count a message as sent or not.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d4FD9mEgBRYHLaYng7Rxeot1GdM/

: 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.)

No.

: 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/en/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sendholdtimer

: 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.

No.

: 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.

N/A

: 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]?

This feature, along with many recent smaller IDR features, does not yet have
presence in the IETF BGP YANG model.  That model has yet to reach RFC status.
Two possibilities for addition seem reasonable:

- Add the necessary configuration and operational state to the IETF BGP YANG
  model prior to publication.
- Publish an augmentation model to add that state to the base model at a later
  date.

It is this chair's opinion that requiring the model to be added to the existing
draft is problematic since it'd create a dependency that would block
publication.

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

It is.

: 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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that no additional directorate review is required.
The issue being addressed by the document is a well understood issue that would
normally be studied by the Transport area as a TCP issue.  Since this draft does
not recommend use of additional TCP mechanisms and, instead, relies on user-land
TCP behaviors covered by POSIX, additional review has not been requested.

: 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?

Proposed Standard.

: 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.

Job Snider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yYJGU1qgbGXdlSxtCWIF0nw5aLs/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/64PqB92HkMOM4N7P5o6gFby2Xas/

Yingzhen Qu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDcyZos3rG9MJEehCpOcRQoioDE/

: 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.

They are willing to be listed as an author.

: 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.)

No relevant nits.

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

The informative references supporting the appendix A internet-draft
implementation section should be removed before publication.

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

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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?

N/A

: 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.

N/A

: 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]).

The IANA assignments are correct vs. document intent and also the content in the
relevant IANA registry.

: 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.

N/A

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
* status - WG Adoption recording.

## 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 a broad agreement?

WG Adoption: 5/5 to 5/19/2022 - adopted

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

WG adoption: Concern whether  draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout-01 would solve the issue.

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.)
Adoption: not at this time.

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 from

## 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.
Job Snider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/

Ben Cox
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BYLhYrNWgnJVoNaTycV0-B324C4/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
* status - WG Adoption recording.

## 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 a broad agreement?

WG Adoption: 5/5 to 5/19/2022 - adopted

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

WG adoption: Concern whether  draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout-01 would solve the issue.

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.)
Adoption: not at this time.

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 from

## 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.
Job Snider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
* status - WG Adoption recording.

## 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 a broad agreement?

WG Adoption: 5/5 to 5/19/2022 - adopted

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

WG adoption: Concern whether  draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout-01 would solve the issue.

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.)
Adoption: not at this time.

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 from

## 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.
Job Snider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5ABCU1s_kuagV0N-pTSWWZMjomg/


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
* status - WG Adoption recording.

## 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 a broad agreement?

WG Adoption:

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

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

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

## Additional Reviews

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

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

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

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

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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