## 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.comhttps://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/