Skip to main content

Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP SR Policy
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-04-17
03 Susan Hares
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 …
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/

2024-03-19
03 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-03-04
03 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03.txt
2024-03-04
03 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-03-04
03 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-03-01
02 Stig Venaas Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stig Venaas. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-03-01
02 Stig Venaas Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stig Venaas.
2024-02-28
02 Dan Romascanu Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list.
2024-02-24
02 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

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

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/

2024-02-24
02 Susan Hares Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-02-24
02 Susan Hares Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares
2024-02-16
02 Carlos Pignataro Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2024-02-15
02 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stig Venaas
2024-02-15
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2024-02-15
02 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2024-02-15
02 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-02-04
02 Ketan Talaulikar This document now replaces draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy instead of None
2024-02-04
02 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02.txt
2024-02-04
02 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-02-04
02 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2023-11-06
01 Susan Hares
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 …
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.
2023-11-06
01 Susan Hares This document now replaces None instead of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
2023-10-26
01 Susan Hares split of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20
into PS: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26
and Experimental draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-00
2023-10-26
01 Susan Hares This document now replaces draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy instead of None
2023-10-26
01 Susan Hares Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2023-09-26
01 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-01.txt
2023-09-26
01 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2023-09-26
01 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2023-09-22
00 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-00.txt
2023-09-22
00 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2023-09-22
00 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision