BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for SRv6 based Services
draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08

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

Post WG LC comments
Cross-WG Checks: Spring OK with -04
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iFwzRGWi4UYznXpcQ_XvyRr9NUg/

RTG-DIR Checks: Nits, resolved by -04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-cpr-02-rtgdir-early-qu-2024-05-31/

OPS-DIR checks:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
resolution:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kxoZlXPk9TKosIJgcpl-zKYhKmQ/

Sec-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0s-TPjb1-ZNqKRf8hDHLKqZGsIg/
Resolution by authors in -04
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZpSHo0VbuQLQSkuahEJ_rA-x_X0/
No response to query (7/8) by 77/19
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Pdy_8J8BBQeANtYL1qj5A9ul3L4/
Note: Forwarding without confirmation from sec-dir reviewer


WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work,
        CAR and CT work both considered the SRv6 and CPR discussion
CAR/CT summaries on IDR Wiki:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates
RTG-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KEhb7vHaif7-QGHRGPETVMRIpYw/
Github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/2

OPS-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/1

WG adoption call:
See shepherd's report in linked draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-cpr/

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

Since this is the last document in IDR's Intent based work (CAR, CT, CPR), the
WG LC discussion had low controversy and mild participation.
The debates regarding this technology were held as part of the 3 year work on
Intent base work.

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 appeals.

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)?

  This informational draft does not specify additional protocol changes, but
  provides a description of an applied use of existing protocols.
  These protocols were applied in 3+ existing networks.
 
  The security review points out security concerns with these issues. 
  The authors feel the security considerations section provides enough warnings about these issues.
  [Note: I have not received a confirmation from the early review, 
  but after 3 weeks of no-response from reviewer - I am submitting this to the IESG.]

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.

  Spring review. 
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iFwzRGWi4UYznXpcQ_XvyRr9NUg/

  Early Review by RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR and SEC-DIR (see links above)


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

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.

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.

  No Formal review

## 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. This shepherd's review is bi-product of the CAR/CT discussion that occurred over 5 years.

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?

    OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, and SEC-DIR
    Note: SEC-DIR reviewer did not respond to email asking to check -04 for 1 month. 
    Submitting this to the IESG.  This shepherd will also try to discuss this at IETF-120 with other security experts.

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?

    Informational. Yes. This document does not specify any protocol additions to BGP.
    This documents describes use of existing features to solve the intent/color-aware problem.
    Therefore, the status of Informational is correct.

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.

See links below.

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.

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/

Contributor:
Xinjun Chen: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uTmM_Dm8dva5dDcd4J-37V-HQ3Y/

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.

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

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.
    No downward references.

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 are RFCs.

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

    No.

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]).

  This informational RFC makes no request of the IANA registry.

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

    This informational RFC makes no request of the IANA registry.

[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]
Question #11 of the shepherd writeup doesn't explain, as asked, why Informational is the right status here.

I think you could omit Section 2 (but not its subsections, obviously) and save a bit of space, as it's simply restating part of the table of contents.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Brian Weis for the secdir review.

Section 1, para 3: Nit:  spell out the first time:  LSR? PE?  SAFI?  (I'm sure there are others)

Section 6, para 1, last sentence:  'the impact is acceptable', the impact to what?  Making the routing table too big?  Or something else?  I'd like to see it spelled out what the impact to security is.

Section 6, para 2:  Is the on-path attacker inside the trusted domain?  Or are they on the Internet?  If it is the case that the on-path attacker is inside the trusted domain, then that fact should be highlighted in the security considerations.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-idr-cpr-07
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S4, S6

* Just a reminder that RFC 9602 allocated a prefix for SIDs.  By common
  agreement among participants in the "Consistent Color Domain" filters
  can be adjusted to default drop all 5f00::/16 traffic but permit the
  color prefixes in use by AS1/AS2/AS3.

  No obligation to incorporate this, just food for thought in case you
  think you might be worth a mention.

## Nits

### S2.1

* "distinguish N different intent" -> "distinguish N different intents"

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-cpr-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

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 2025-02-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-idr-cpr@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for SRv6 based Services) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for SRv6
based Services'
  as Informational 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 2025-02-07. 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 describes a mechanism to advertise IPv6 prefixes in BGP
  which are associated with Color Extended Communities to establish
  end-to-end intent-aware paths for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
  services.  Such IPv6 prefixes are called "Colored Prefixes", and this
  mechanism is called Colored Prefix Routing (CPR).  In SRv6 networks,
  the Colored prefixes are the SRv6 locators associated with different
  intent.  SRv6 services (e.g.  SRv6 VPN services) with specific intent
  could be assigned with SRv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs) under the
  corresponding SRv6 locators, which are advertised as Colored
  prefixes.

  This operational methodology allows the SRv6 service traffic to be
  steered into end-to-end intent-aware paths simply based on the
  longest prefix matching of SRv6 Service SIDs to the Colored prefixes.
  The existing IPv6 Address Family and Color Extended Community are
  reused for the advertisement of IPv6 Colored prefixes without new BGP
  extensions, thus this mechanism is easy to interoperate and can be
  deployed incrementally in multi-Autonomous System (AS) networks which
  belong to the same trusted domain.




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


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6098/

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

Post WG LC comments
Cross-WG Checks: Spring OK with -04
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iFwzRGWi4UYznXpcQ_XvyRr9NUg/

RTG-DIR Checks: Nits, resolved by -04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-cpr-02-rtgdir-early-qu-2024-05-31/

OPS-DIR checks:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
resolution:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kxoZlXPk9TKosIJgcpl-zKYhKmQ/

Sec-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0s-TPjb1-ZNqKRf8hDHLKqZGsIg/
Resolution by authors in -04
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZpSHo0VbuQLQSkuahEJ_rA-x_X0/
No response to query (7/8) by 77/19
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Pdy_8J8BBQeANtYL1qj5A9ul3L4/
Note: Forwarding without confirmation from sec-dir reviewer


WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work,
        CAR and CT work both considered the SRv6 and CPR discussion
CAR/CT summaries on IDR Wiki:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates
RTG-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KEhb7vHaif7-QGHRGPETVMRIpYw/
Github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/2

OPS-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/1

WG adoption call:
See shepherd's report in linked draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-cpr/

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

Since this is the last document in IDR's Intent based work (CAR, CT, CPR), the
WG LC discussion had low controversy and mild participation.
The debates regarding this technology were held as part of the 3 year work on
Intent base work.

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 appeals.

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)?

  This informational draft does not specify additional protocol changes, but
  provides a description of an applied use of existing protocols.
  These protocols were applied in 3+ existing networks.
 
  The security review points out security concerns with these issues. 
  The authors feel the security considerations section provides enough warnings about these issues.
  [Note: I have not received a confirmation from the early review, 
  but after 3 weeks of no-response from reviewer - I am submitting this to the IESG.]

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.

  Spring review. 
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iFwzRGWi4UYznXpcQ_XvyRr9NUg/

  Early Review by RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR and SEC-DIR (see links above)


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

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.

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.

  No Formal review

## 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. This shepherd's review is bi-product of the CAR/CT discussion that occurred over 5 years.

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?

    OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, and SEC-DIR
    Note: SEC-DIR reviewer did not respond to email asking to check -04 for 1 month. 
    Submitting this to the IESG.  This shepherd will also try to discuss this at IETF-120 with other security experts.

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?

    Informational. Yes.

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

See links below.

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.

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/

Contributor:
Xinjun Chen: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uTmM_Dm8dva5dDcd4J-37V-HQ3Y/

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.

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

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.
    No downward references.

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 are RFCs.

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

    No.

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]).

  This informational RFC makes no request of the IANA registry.

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

    This informational RFC makes no request of the IANA registry.

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

Post WG LC comments
Cross-WG Checks: Spring OK with -04
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iFwzRGWi4UYznXpcQ_XvyRr9NUg/

RTG-DIR Checks: Nits, resolved by -04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-cpr-02-rtgdir-early-qu-2024-05-31/

OPS-DIR checks:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
resolution:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kxoZlXPk9TKosIJgcpl-zKYhKmQ/

Sec-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0s-TPjb1-ZNqKRf8hDHLKqZGsIg/
Resolution by authors in -04
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZpSHo0VbuQLQSkuahEJ_rA-x_X0/
No response to query (7/8) by 77/19
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Pdy_8J8BBQeANtYL1qj5A9ul3L4/
Note: Forwarding without confirmation from sec-dir reviewer


WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work,
        CAR and CT work both considered the SRv6 and CPR discussion
CAR/CT summaries on IDR Wiki:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates
RTG-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KEhb7vHaif7-QGHRGPETVMRIpYw/
Github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/2

OPS-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/1

WG adoption call:
See shepherd's report in linked draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-cpr/

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

Since this is the last document in IDR's Intent based work (CAR, CT, CPR), the
WG LC discussion had low controversy and mild participation.
The debates regarding this technology were held as part of the 3 year work on
Intent base work.

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 appeals.

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)?

  This informational draft does not specify additional protocol changes, but
  provides a description of an applied use of existing protocols.
  These protocols were applied in 3+ existing networks.
 
  The security review points out security concerns with these issues. 
  The authors feel the security considerations section provides enough warnings about these issues.
  [Note: I have not received a confirmation from the early review, 
  but after 3 weeks of no-response from reviewer - I am submitting this to the IESG.]

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.

  Spring review. 
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iFwzRGWi4UYznXpcQ_XvyRr9NUg/

  Early Review by RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR and SEC-DIR (see links above)


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

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.

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.

  No Formal review

## 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. This shepherd's review is bi-product of the CAR/CT discussion that occurred over 5 years.

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?

    OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, and SEC-DIR
    Note: SEC-DIR reviewer did not respond to email asking to check -04 for 1 month. 
    Submitting this to the IESG.  This shepherd will also try to discuss this at IETF-120 with other security experts.

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?

    Informational. Yes.

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

See links below.

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.

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/

Contributor:
Xinjun Chen: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uTmM_Dm8dva5dDcd4J-37V-HQ3Y/

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.

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

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.
    No downward references.

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 are RFCs.

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

    No.

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]).

  This informational RFC makes no request of the IANA registry.

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

    This informational RFC makes no request of the IANA registry.

[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/

Needed actions:
1. SEC-DIR - recheck with Security ADs or RTG-DIR ADs at IETF-120
(question 1, 14)

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

Post WG LC comments
Cross-WG Checks: Spring OK with -04
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iFwzRGWi4UYznXpcQ_XvyRr9NUg/

RTG-DIR Checks: Nits, resolved by -04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-cpr-02-rtgdir-early-qu-2024-05-31/

OPS-DIR checks:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
resolution:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kxoZlXPk9TKosIJgcpl-zKYhKmQ/

Sec-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0s-TPjb1-ZNqKRf8hDHLKqZGsIg/
Resolution by authors in -04
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZpSHo0VbuQLQSkuahEJ_rA-x_X0/
No response to query (7/8) by 77/19
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Pdy_8J8BBQeANtYL1qj5A9ul3L4/
Note: Forwarding without confirmation from sec-dir reviewer


WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work,
        CAR and CT work both considered the SRv6 and CPR discussion
CAR/CT summaries on IDR Wiki:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates
RTG-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KEhb7vHaif7-QGHRGPETVMRIpYw/
Github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/2

OPS-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/1

WG adoption call:
See shepherd's report in linked draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-cpr/

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

Since this is the last document in IDR's Intent based work (CAR, CT, CPR), the
WG LC discussion had low controversy and mild participation.
The debates regarding this technology were held as part of the 3 year work on
Intent base work.

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 appeals.

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)?

  This informational draft does not specify additional protocol changes, but
  provides a description of an applied use of existing protocols.
  These protocols were applied in 3+ existing networks.
 
  The security review points out security concerns with these issues. 
  The authors feel the security considerations section provides enough warnings about these issues.
  [Note: I have not received a confirmation from the early review, 
  but after 3 weeks of no-response from reviewer - I am submitting this to the IESG.]

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.

  Spring review. 
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iFwzRGWi4UYznXpcQ_XvyRr9NUg/

  Early Review by RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR and SEC-DIR (see links above)


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

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.

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.

  No Formal review

## 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. This shepherd's review is bi-product of the CAR/CT discussion that occurred over 5 years.

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?

    OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, and SEC-DIR
    Note: SEC-DIR is being re-ceck

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

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

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

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/

Contributor:
Xinjun Chen: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uTmM_Dm8dva5dDcd4J-37V-HQ3Y/

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.

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

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.
    No downward references.

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 are RFCs.

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

    No.

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]).

  This informational RFC makes no request of the IANA registry.

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

    This informational RFC makes no request of the IANA registry.

[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/

Needed actions:
1) Revision to handle: RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, CAR/CT 
2) Spring discussion on H.Insert.Red (sent on 6/6)

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

Post WG LC comments
Cross-WG Checks:
Spring comment on use of H.Insert.Red
defined in [draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion/]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MocXZIPp_VlfVprgeA6B1CEcFsE/

RTG-DIR Checks:

OPS-DIR checks:


WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work,
        CAR and CT work both considered the SRv6 and CPR discussion
CAR/CT summaries on IDR Wiki:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates
RTG-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KEhb7vHaif7-QGHRGPETVMRIpYw/
Github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/2

OPS-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/1

WG adoption call:
See shepherd's report in linked draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-cpr/

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

Since this is the last document in IDR's Intent based work (CAR, CT, CPR), the
WG LC discussion had low controversy and mild participation.
The debates regarding this technology were held as part of the 3 year work on
Intent base work.

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 appeals.

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)?

  [TBD]

## 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.

  RTG-DIR and OPS-DIR Directorate Reviews occurred.
  SEC-DIR Directorate

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

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

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

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

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

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

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

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

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/

Contributor:
Xinjun Chen: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uTmM_Dm8dva5dDcd4J-37V-HQ3Y/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/

Needed actions:
1) Revision to handle: RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, CAR/CT 
2) Spring discussion on H.Insert.Red (sent on 6/6)

## 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?

WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work,
        CAR and CT work both considered the SRv6 and CPR discussion
CAR/CT summaries on IDR Wiki:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates
RTG-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KEhb7vHaif7-QGHRGPETVMRIpYw/
Github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/2

OPS-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/1

WG adoption call:
See shepherd's report in linked draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-cpr/

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

Since this is the last document in IDR's Intent based work (CAR, CT, CPR), the
WG LC discussion had low controversy and mild participation.
The debates regarding this technology were held as part of the 3 year work on
Intent base work.

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 appeals.

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)?

  [TBD]

## 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.

  RTG-DIR and OPS-DIR Directorate Reviews occurred.
  SEC-DIR Directorate

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

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

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

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

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

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

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

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

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/

Contributor:
Xinjun Chen: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uTmM_Dm8dva5dDcd4J-37V-HQ3Y/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/

Needed actions:
1) Revision to handle: RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, CAR/CT 
2) Note to Spring
2) link to Intent Based work (CAR/CT)

## 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?

WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work,
        CAR and CT work both considered the SRv6 and CPR discussion
CAR/CT summaries on IDR Wiki:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates
RTG-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KEhb7vHaif7-QGHRGPETVMRIpYw/
Github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/2

OPS-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/1

WG adoption call:
See shepherd's report in linked draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-cpr/

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

Since this is the last document in IDR's Intent based work (CAR, CT, CPR), the
WG LC discussion had low controversy and mild participation.
The debates regarding this technology were held as part of the 3 year work on
Intent base work.

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 appeals.

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)?

  [TBD]

## 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.

  RTG-DIR and OPS-DIR Directorate Reviews occurred.
  SEC-DIR Directorate

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

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

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

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

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

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

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

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

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/

Contributor:
Xinjun Chen: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uTmM_Dm8dva5dDcd4J-37V-HQ3Y/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/

Needed actions:
1) Summary of discussion
2) link to Intent Based work (CAR/CT)
3) Summary of Directorate calls

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


## Document History

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

WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue:

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates

RTG-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KEhb7vHaif7-QGHRGPETVMRIpYw/
Github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/2

OPS-DIR review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bF3TbgqW58XBTqtzmhJXLGzQcQs/
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-cpr/issues/1

WG adoption call:







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

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

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

## Additional Reviews

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

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

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

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

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

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

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

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

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

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/

Contributor:
Xinjun Chen: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uTmM_Dm8dva5dDcd4J-37V-HQ3Y/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/

Needed actions:
1) Summary of discussion
2) link to Intent Based work (CAR/CT)
3) Summary of Directorate calls

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


## Document History

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

WG LC 4/26 to 5/10, extended to 5/15
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bu4woD9zKcxW16XOWr9iIuol548/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jw8vQjF2WfOz3T_KNlkOBUuIL7M/

Status: no contention, Strong support from WG participants working on SRv6
Content: CPR was discussed in the context of the CAR/CT work

Technical part of WG LC discussion to review: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/owrPTHXx7pIKmnnoOlxUilLpwyI/
github issue:

Part of discussion covered:
1. In the past, Color usually belongs to private prefixes, not the locators.
However, SR Policy and Flex-Algo mechanism use color on per hop routing. 
2. Forwarding process uses insertion not encapsulation. (pull text here)
3. EPE Traffic engineering versus CPR per hop routing (intent based)

Post WG-LC directorates






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

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

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

## Additional Reviews

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

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

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

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

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

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

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

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

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

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/

Needed actions:
1) Summary of discussion
2) link to Intent Based work (CAR/CT)
3) Summary of Directorate calls

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


## Document History

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

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

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

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

## Additional Reviews

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

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

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

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

## Document Shepherd Checks

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

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

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

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

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

Haibo Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f6-mpnCDSXq1zLJAb6Dngd40uYI/

Jie Dong
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aVIAYvvOKNXNlENcKjGWFGjSMpQ/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kjSAw7FZ5Rr23MXEBoFh3So2CMo/

Tao Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1mGQqOuW5uTyqJDgTseYz0s2mxg/

Chen Ran
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MIH3jdKsHfey6nMko8wvyQErWks/



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/