# 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 <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/
Stefano Previdi IETF <sprevidi4ietf@gmail.com>
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/