# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents (15/4/2026 version)
## 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?
There consensus on this document was relatively light, a few individuals gave
their support to the adoption call. and it was the same case for the last call.
Adoption call: 12/23/2023 to 1/20/2023
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uwY3Hdrk2ned2hqMimpB6alhd9U/
Adoption decision announcement: (3/3/2023)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SRvNmA8z1e9fEzM74OTgmhcZyq0/
Last call: 12/11/2025 to 1/5/2026, extended to 1/16/2026
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_51JdiKO37tSfBjkVHd3UXOIHFc/
Last call decision announcement (1/28/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/C1jlSlhUM8Z0CDkBaSHh7PDLDC4/
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
During the adoption call, there was comments that the term Route Target (RT)
was not officially defined(Robert Raszuk). The authors have added text to
clarify the scope of RTs. There was no confirmation whether that change
addressed the comments or not.
During the last call, there was comments that the sub-type of RT-derived
extended community cannot be guaranteed either. The authors have updated text
to address the comments. There was no confirmation whether that change
addressed the comments or not.
Besides that, there were no other comments.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
This document mainly requests for the allocation of a new sub-type for
RT-derived Community in existing Extended Community registries, and gives
several possible use cases. The document itself does not specify the behavior
of RT-derived community, thus implementation report is not relevant.
## 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.
BESS and GROW WGs were informed of the adoption call and were solicited to
review this draft in 1/20/2023.
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 expert review is required for this document.
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]?
There is no YANG module in this document.
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.
N/A
## 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.
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?
No further technical issue identified.
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?
The requested type of RFC publication is Standards Track.
It requires the allocation of new code points from the BGP Extended Communities
registries. The state is reflected correctly.
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.
Yes the authors were reminded to reply to the IPR call during adoption and last
call.
One IPR was disclosed after the adoption:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/XT9LPsa9uDQCUsj4jQ1KKTm-mcc/
Adoption IPR call replies:
Jeff Haas: Unaware of any applicable IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FDtAopXNdu_k3XtuhZlTKyMtysk/
Keyur Patel: Unaware of any applicable IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nX59F0RAuDoQYcYUmC-yrfdxK8c/
Jeffrey Zhang: Not aware of any related IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP8sRCNOPYqn3wEZOyWQccnXpwo/
Last call IPR call replies:
Jeff Haas: Unaware of any undisclosed IPR.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y-O1uPUfUC8IUcn9agFOKEQjnOY/
Jeffrey Zhang: Unaware of any undisclosed IPR.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FuAogZS1NSg7lZ6wZAHBD-9CC5s/
Keyur Patel: Unaware of any undisclosed IPR.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/numgG6yofOB9y4eq8LsW1J4f-Vg/
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.
Yes.
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.)
According to https://authors.ietf.org/required-content, Section 3 "IANA
Assignments" needs to be replaced by the "IANA considerations" section. This is
identified as an error by idnits.
The references also need to be updated.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
None.
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.
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?
No.
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]).
The IANA considerations are currently in the IANA Assignments section (as
mentioned in item 14), the allocation has been done by IANA in corresponding
registries, and identified in this document.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
No new IANA registry is requested.
[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/