Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP SR Policy
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-08

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Vincent Roca for his secdir review.

I agree with the following John Scudder's wording comments. 
  - titles of the subsections:  I did find myself scrolling up and down to remember which letter went with which option. 
  - Flags are set or clear (picky, maybe but precise language helps the implementer)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
[Checks: RFC4858[2]]
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps:
1) 1st WG LC
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy (WG LC 8/6/2021)
Directorate reviews:
INT-DIR (Brian Haberman) status: Ready with issues,
RTG-DIR (Mohamed Boucadair), Status: Has issues
SEC-DIR: (Vincent Roca): Status: Ready
OPS-DIR: not done

2) Wait for RFC7752bis
7/27/2022 - draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy - submitted for publication

3) require a split of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy into 2 documents: 
due to segment types C-K were not implemented (AD: Andrew Alston)
Draft split to: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03.

Link to WG LC agreement to split: (8/1/2023 to 8/23/2023)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VOjsIMFfle5jKy3ZGhf2iPYaqFE/
Link to WG LC on content of split documents:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/x9V1xsmhb2bO2bMyv9Lb-0Gjz0M/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CL0CgbJGwCXB1i9tZxDC2gMQw4k/

d) Shepherd Review split documents (December 2023)
Github for quick review of issues in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
or review the shepherd's report at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/

e) RFC9012 issues review with shepherd
During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 defines a SR Policy Tunnel + SR Policy SAFI.
The TLVs and procedures in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi have the following constraints:
  1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
  2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types,
  3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types.
  4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM to validate content.
  5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits [C, O]

f) Pre-2nd WG LC Directorate reviews: RTG-DIR and OPS-DIr
RTG-DIR: Stig Venaas
Status: Ready:
Link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hunx3XVVUkfoGfI8_GXuapzU6es/

OPS-DIR: Dan Romascanu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g0ugjTs156A5-3csgLimGDe1YP4/

f) 2nd WG LC (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024 extended to 3/7/2024) 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Note: Explicit comments on issues found in RFC9012 review


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

Shepherd questioned the RFC9012 issues, but WG LC did not comment on these issues.

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)?

6 implementations of base technology in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi, but
none in the segment types C-L. Therefore, this draft is experimental.

## 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.

In early reviews part of draft: RTG-DIR (2x), OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, Int-DIR.
After the split, reviews were done by RTG-DIR and OPS-DIR. 

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 


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

No Yang module. Added module as a BGP Model needed 
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/BGP-Model-Features

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.

Not applicable.

## 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?

Yes - We have gone through content, English, other WG and references.

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?

All issues have been covered.  If I have missed anything, please let the shepherd know.

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

Experimental due to lack of 2 implementations. Experiment ends when
IDR is notified of 2 implementations for all features or a large portion of
the features.

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.

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

IPR statements:
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

Stefano Previdi IETF
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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.

5 authors; All consent to be authors.

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 nits in -04.txt

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

All references normative. All in the appropriate category.

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

All normative references freely available as IETF RFCS or drafts.

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

none.

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?

All normative References RFC or submitted to IESG.

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

Not directly - RFC9012 is first modified by draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.
This experimental RFC only provides additional values.
Shepherd welcomes comments if this draft should also indicating modifying [RFC9012].

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]).

IANA Section is correct.

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.

No new registries.

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

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this document. I have a few comments I hope are helpful.

- It would be nice if the subsection titles included both the letter code and the symbolic name. (Contrast to my comment on the document draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-13, which uses only the symbolic name and not the letter code, which I also found suboptimal.)

- You use verbiage following this pattern in several places: "SR Algorithm: 1 octet specifying SR Algorithm as described in section 3.1.1 in [RFC8402] when A-Flag as defined in Section 2.10 is present. SR Algorithm is used by SRPM [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] as described in section 4 in [RFC9256]. When A-Flag is not encoded". While I'm able to understand what you mean by the flag being "present" or "not encoded", strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense: a flag is always present, the distinction is whether it's set or clear. Referring back to ls-sr-policy again, that document says "The document uses the term "set" to indicate that the value of a flag bit is 1 and the term "clear" when the value is 0." I think you would do well to adopt the same convention here and expunge any "present" and "not encoded" when talking about flags.

- Similar to the above, you use "appears with" 3x in Section 2.10, e.g. "A-Flag applies to Segment Types C, D, I, J, and K. If A-Flag appears with Segment Types A, B, E, F, G, and H, it MUST be ignored." A similar critique applies. I think you can instead say something like "the value of the A-Flag is ignored for Segment Types A, B, E, F, G, and H".

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to complete the encoding of these segment types with BGP.

One small editorial observation was that sometimes a dash "-" is used between specifying the number of octets and sometimes it is not. for example "4 octets" or "16-octets"

[Ballot comment]
Than you to complete the encoding of these segment types in BGP.

One small editorial observation was that sometimes a dash "-" is used between specifying the number of octets and sometimes it is not. for example "4 octets" or "16-octets"

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval of and completion of IANA Actions in another document:

draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi

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

First, in the SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs registry proposed to be created in the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-tunnel-encapsulation/

nine new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value Description Reference
-----------------------------------------------------
3 Segment Type C sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
4 Segment Type D sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
5 Segment Type E sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
6 Segment Type F sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
7 Segment Type G sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
8 Segment Type H sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
14 Segment Type I sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
15 Segment Type J sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]
16 Segment Type K sub-TLV [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the SR Policy Segment Flags registry also proposed to be created in the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-tunnel-encapsulation/

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Bit Description Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------
1 SR Algorithm Flag (A-Flag) [ RFC-to-be ]
2 SID Specified Flag (S-Flag) [ RFC-to-be ]

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

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

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP SR Policy) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions
for BGP SR Policy'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-11-11. 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 specifies the signaling of additional Segment Routing
  Segment Types for BGP SR Policy SAFI.




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


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2984/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5890/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5891/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
[Checks: RFC4858[2]]
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps:
1) 1st WG LC
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy (WG LC 8/6/2021)
Directorate reviews:
INT-DIR (Brian Haberman) status: Ready with issues,
RTG-DIR (Mohamed Boucadair), Status: Has issues
SEC-DIR: (Vincent Roca): Status: Ready
OPS-DIR: not done

2) Wait for RFC7752bis
7/27/2022 - draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy - submitted for publication

3) require a split of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy into 2 documents: 
due to segment types C-K were not implemented (AD: Andrew Alston)
Draft split to: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03.

Link to WG LC agreement to split: (8/1/2023 to 8/23/2023)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VOjsIMFfle5jKy3ZGhf2iPYaqFE/
Link to WG LC on content of split documents:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/x9V1xsmhb2bO2bMyv9Lb-0Gjz0M/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CL0CgbJGwCXB1i9tZxDC2gMQw4k/

d) Shepherd Review split documents (December 2023)
Github for quick review of issues in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
or review the shepherd's report at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/

e) RFC9012 issues review with shepherd
During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 defines a SR Policy Tunnel + SR Policy SAFI.
The TLVs and procedures in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi have the following constraints:
  1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
  2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types,
  3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types.
  4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM to validate content.
  5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits [C, O]

f) Pre-2nd WG LC Directorate reviews: RTG-DIR and OPS-DIr
RTG-DIR: Stig Venaas
Status: Ready:
Link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hunx3XVVUkfoGfI8_GXuapzU6es/

OPS-DIR: Dan Romascanu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g0ugjTs156A5-3csgLimGDe1YP4/

f) 2nd WG LC (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024 extended to 3/7/2024) 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Note: Explicit comments on issues found in RFC9012 review


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

Shepherd questioned the RFC9012 issues, but WG LC did not comment on these issues.

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)?

6 implementations of base technology in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi, but
none in the segment types C-L. Therefore, this draft is experimental.

## 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.

In early reviews part of draft: RTG-DIR (2x), OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, Int-DIR.
After the split, reviews were done by RTG-DIR and OPS-DIR. 

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 


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

No Yang module. Added module as a BGP Model needed 
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/BGP-Model-Features

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.

Not applicable.

## 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?

Yes - We have gone through content, English, other WG and references.

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?

All issues have been covered.  If I have missed anything, please let the shepherd know.

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

Experimental due to lack of 2 implementations.

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.

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

IPR statements:
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

Stefano Previdi IETF
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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.

5 authors; All consent to be authors.

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 nits in -04.txt

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

All references normative. All in the appropriate category.

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

All normative references freely available as IETF RFCS or drafts.

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

none.

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?

All normative References RFC or submitted to IESG.

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

Not directly - RFC9012 is first modified by draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.
This experimental RFC only provides additional values.
Shepherd welcomes comments if this draft should also indicating modifying [RFC9012].

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]).

IANA Section is correct.

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.

No new registries.

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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
[Checks: RFC4858[2]]
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps:
1) 1st WG LC
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy (WG LC 8/6/2021)
Directorate reviews:
INT-DIR (Brian Haberman) status: Ready with issues,
RTG-DIR (Mohamed Boucadair), Status: Has issues
SEC-DIR: (Vincent Roca): Status: Ready
OPS-DIR: not done

2) Wait for RFC7752bis
7/27/2022 - draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy - submitted for publication

3) require a split of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy into 2 documents: 
due to segment types C-K were not implemented (AD: Andrew Alston)
Draft split to: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03.

Link to WG LC agreement to split: (8/1/2023 to 8/23/2023)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VOjsIMFfle5jKy3ZGhf2iPYaqFE/
Link to WG LC on content of split documents:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/x9V1xsmhb2bO2bMyv9Lb-0Gjz0M/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CL0CgbJGwCXB1i9tZxDC2gMQw4k/

d) Shepherd Review split documents (December 2023)
Github for quick review of issues in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
or review the shepherd's report at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/

e) RFC9012 issues review with shepherd
During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 defines a SR Policy Tunnel + SR Policy SAFI.
The TLVs and procedures in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi have the following constraints:
  1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
  2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types,
  3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types.
  4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM to validate content.
  5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits [C, O]

f) Pre-2nd WG LC Directorate reviews: RTG-DIR and OPS-DIr
RTG-DIR: Stig Venaas
Status: Ready:
Link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hunx3XVVUkfoGfI8_GXuapzU6es/

OPS-DIR: Dan Romascanu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g0ugjTs156A5-3csgLimGDe1YP4/

f) 2nd WG LC (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024 extended to 3/7/2024) 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Note: Explicit comments on issues found in RFC9012 review


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

Shepherd questioned the RFC9012 issues, but WG LC did not comment on these issues.

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)?

6 implementations of base technology in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi, but
none in the segment types C-L. Therefore, this draft is experimental.

## 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.

In early reviews part of draft: RTG-DIR (2x), OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, Int-DIR.
After the split, reviews were done by RTG-DIR and OPS-DIR. 

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 


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

No Yang module. Added module as a BGP Model needed 
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/BGP-Model-Features

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.

Not applicable.

## 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?

Yes - We have gone through content, English, other WG and references.

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?

All issues have been covered.  If I have missed anything, please let the shepherd know.

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

Experimental due to lack of 2 implementations.

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.

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

IPR statements:
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

Stefano Previdi IETF
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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.

5 authors; All consent to be authors.

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 nits in -04.txt

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

All references normative. All in the appropriate category.

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

All normative references freely available as IETF RFCS or drafts.

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

none.

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?

All normative References RFC or submitted to IESG.

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

Not directly - RFC9012 is first modified by draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.
This experimental RFC only provides additional values.
Shepherd welcomes comments if this draft should also indicating modifying [RFC9012].

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]).

IANA Section is correct.

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.

No new registries.

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

1. Final Shepherd Review including nits

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
[Checks: RFC4858[2]]
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps:
1) 1st WG LC
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy (WG LC 8/6/2021)
Directorate reviews:
INT-DIR (Brian Haberman) status: Ready with issues,
RTG-DIR (Mohamed Boucadair), Status: Has issues
SEC-DIR: (Vincent Roca): Status: Ready
OPS-DIR: not done

2) Wait for RFC7752bis
7/27/2022 - draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy - submitted for publication

3) require a split of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy into 2 documents: 
due to segment types C-K were not implemented (AD: Andrew Alston)
Draft split to: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03.

Link to WG LC agreement to split: (8/1/2023 to 8/23/2023)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VOjsIMFfle5jKy3ZGhf2iPYaqFE/
Link to WG LC on content of split documents:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/x9V1xsmhb2bO2bMyv9Lb-0Gjz0M/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CL0CgbJGwCXB1i9tZxDC2gMQw4k/

d) Shepherd Review split documents (December 2023)
Github for quick review of issues in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
or review the shepherd's report at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/

e) RFC9012 issues review with shepherd
During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 defines a SR Policy Tunnel + SR Policy SAFI.
The TLVs and procedures in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi have the following constraints:
  1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
  2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types,
  3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types.
  4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM to validate content.
  5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits [C, O]

f) Pre-2nd WG LC Directorate reviews: RTG-DIR and OPS-DIr
RTG-DIR: Stig Venaas
Status: Ready:
Link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hunx3XVVUkfoGfI8_GXuapzU6es/

OPS-DIR: Dan Romascanu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g0ugjTs156A5-3csgLimGDe1YP4/

f) 2nd WG LC (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024 extended to 3/7/2024) 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Note: Explicit comments on issues found in RFC9012 review


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

Shepherd questioned the RFC9012 issues, but WG LC did not comment on these issues.

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)?

6 implementations of base technology in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi, but
none in the segment types C-L. Therefore, this draft is experimental.

## 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.

In early reviews part of draft: RTG-DIR (2x), OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, Int-DIR 

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 


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

No Yang module. Added module as a BGP Model needed 
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/BGP-Model-Features

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.

Not applicable.

## 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?

[Check with ADs on common issues.]

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

Experimental due to lack of 2 implementations.

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.

Call for IPR
Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

IPR statements:
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

Stefano Previdi IETF
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

Missing IPR
1. Clarence Filsfils

2. Paul Mattes

3. Dhanendra Jain

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.

5 authors; Need IPR statements from last 3.

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.)

[run extensive I-D nits]

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

[Need to check informative and normative - 1 more time]

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

[All freely available]

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.

[Need to check]

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?

[Need to check]

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

Not directly - RFC9012 is first modified by draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.
This experimental RFC only provides additional values.
Shepherd welcomes comments if this draft should also modify [RFC9012]

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]).

[TBD]
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.

[TBD]

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

To do:
2. update history
3. Finish status 

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
[Checks: RFC4858[2]]
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps:
1) 1st WG LC
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy (WG LC 8/6/2021)
Directorate reviews:
INT-DIR (Brian Haberman) status: Ready with issues,
RTG-DIR (Mohamed Boucadair), Status: Has issues
SEC-DIR: (Vincent Roca): Status: Ready
OPS-DIR: not done

2) Wait for RFC7752bis
7/27/2022 - draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy - submitted for publication

3) require a split of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy into 2 documents: 
due to segment types C-K were not implemented (AD: Andrew Alston)
Draft split to: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03.

Link to WG LC agreement to split: (8/1/2023 to 8/23/2023)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VOjsIMFfle5jKy3ZGhf2iPYaqFE/
Link to WG LC on content of split documents:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/x9V1xsmhb2bO2bMyv9Lb-0Gjz0M/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CL0CgbJGwCXB1i9tZxDC2gMQw4k/

d) Shepherd Review split documents (December 2023)
Github for quick review of issues in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
or review the shepherd's report at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/

e) RFC9012 issues review with shepherd
During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 defines a SR Policy Tunnel + SR Policy SAFI.
The TLVs and procedures in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi have the following constraints:
  1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
  2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types,
  3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types.
  4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM to validate content.
  5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits [C, O]

f) Pre-2nd WG LC Directorate reviews: RTG-DIR and OPS-DIr
RTG-DIR: Stig Venaas
Status: Ready:
Link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hunx3XVVUkfoGfI8_GXuapzU6es/

OPS-DIR: Dan Romascanu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g0ugjTs156A5-3csgLimGDe1YP4/

f) 2nd WG LC (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024 extended to 3/7/2024) 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Note: Explicit comments on issues found in RFC9012 review


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

Shepherd questioned the RFC9012 issues, but WG LC did not comment on these issues.

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)?

6 implementations of base technology in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi, but
none in the segment types C-L. Therefore, this draft is experimental.

## 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.

In early reviews part of draft: RTG-DIR (2x), OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, Int-DIR 

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 


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

No Yang module. Added module as a BGP Model needed 
https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/BGP-Model-Features

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.

Not applicable.

## 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?

[Check with ADs on common issues.]

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

Experimental due to lack of 2 implementations.

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.

Call for IPR
Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

IPR statements:
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

Stefano Previdi IETF
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

Missing IPR
1. Clarence Filsfils

2. Paul Mattes

3. Dhanendra Jain

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.

5 authors; Need IPR statements from last 3.

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.)

[run extensive I-D nits]

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

[Need to check informative and normative - 1 more time]

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

[All freely available]

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.

[Need to check]

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?

[Need to check]

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

Not directly - RFC9012 is first modified by draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.
This experimental RFC only provides additional values.
Shepherd welcomes comments if this draft should also modify [RFC9012]

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]).

[TBD]
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.

[TBD]

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

To do:
1. Get draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-policy-safi - completed.
2. update history
3. Finish status 

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
[Checks: RFC4858[2]]
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps: a) 1st WG LC, b) Wait for RFC7752bis,
c) require split of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
due
to draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03.
due to segment types C-K were not implemented
AD: Andrew Alston

d) review split

e) RFC9012 issues review with shepherd (see 
f) Pre-2nd WG LC Directorate reviews: RTG-DIR and OPS-DIr
RTG-DIR: Stig Venaas
Status: Ready:
Link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hunx3XVVUkfoGfI8_GXuapzU6es/

f) 2nd WG LC (2/15/2024 to 2/29/204 extended to 3/7)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/


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

comment on all 6 states

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)?

6 implementations of base technology, none of segment types C-L. 
So experimental for these types

## 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.

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.  Will add to IDR list of needed Yang modules.

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.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

See Last Editorial email
[Here add email with last english checks]

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?

[Check with ADs on common issues.]

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

Experimental due to lack of 2 implementations.

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.

Call for IPR
Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

IPR statements:
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

Stefano Previdi IETF
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

Missing IPR
1. Clarence Filsfils

2. Paul Mattes

3. Dhanendra Jain

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.

5 authors; Need IPR statements from last 3.

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.)

[run extensive I-D nits]

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

[Need to check informative and normative - 1 more time]

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

[All freely available]

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.

[Need to check]

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?

[Need to check]

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

Not directly - RFC9012 is first modified by draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.
This experimental RFC only provides additional values.
Shepherd welcomes comments if this draft should also modify [RFC9012]

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]).

[TBD]
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.

[TBD]

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

To do:
1. Get draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-policy-safi - completed.
2. update history
3. Finish status 

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
[Checks: RFC4858[2]]
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps: a) 1st WG LC, b) Wait for RFc7752, c) require split,  d) review split, e) RFc9012 issues, f) 2nd WG LC

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

comment on all 6 states

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)?

6 implementations of base technology, none of segment types C-L. 
So experimental for these types

## 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.

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.  Will add to IDR list of needed Yang modules.

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.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

See Last Editorial email
[Here add email with last english checks]

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?

[Check with ADs on common issues.]

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

Experimental due to lack of 2 implementations.

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.

Call for IPR
Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

IPR statements:
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

Stefano Previdi IETF
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

Missing IPR
1. Clarence Filsfils

2. Paul Mattes

3. Dhanendra Jain

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.

5 authors; Need IPR statements from last 3.

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.)

[run extensive I-D nits]

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

[Need to check informative and normative - 1 more time]

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

[All freely available]

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.

[Need to check]

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?

[Need to check]

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

Not directly - RFC9012 is first modified by draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.
This experimental RFC only provides additional values.
Shepherd welcomes comments if this draft should also modify [RFC9012]

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]).

[TBD]
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.

[TBD]

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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps: a) 1st WG LC, b) Wait for RFc7752, c) require split,  d) review split, e) RFc9012 issues, f) 2nd WG LC

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

comment on all 6 states


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)?
6 implementations of base technology, none of segment types C-L. 
So experimental for these types

## 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.

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.  Will add to IDR list of needed Yang modules.

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.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

See Last Editorial email
[Here add email with last english checks]

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?

[Check with ADs on common issues.]

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

Experimental due to lack of 2 implementations.

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.

Call for IPR
Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

IPR statements:
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

Stefano Previdi IETF
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

Missing IPR
1. Clarence Filsfils

2. Paul Mattes

3. Dhanendra Jain

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.

5 authors; Need IPR statements from last 3.

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.)

[run extensive I-D nits]

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

[Need to check informative and normative - 1 more time]

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

[All freely available]

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.

[Need to check]

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?

[Need to check]

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

Not directly - RFC9012 is first modified by draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.
This experimental RFC only provides additional values.
Shepherd welcomes comments if this draft should also modify [RFC9012]

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]).

[TBD]
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.

[TBD]

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

There is an issue with the replace feature.
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy was split into
a) draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20 and
b) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-00.
(revisions afterward on both drafts are due to editorial issues.)

If I use the replace for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext, it removes draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy. I am going to check with Datatracker folks on how to resolve this issue.

If nothing else, we can rename draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy to draft-ietf-idr-sr-te-policy.