Skip to main content

Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-11-07
10 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-10.txt
2024-11-07
10 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-11-07
10 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-11-06
09 Dan Romascanu Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list.
2024-10-28
09 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar
2024-10-24
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2024-10-21
09 Liz Flynn IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-10-21
09 Liz Flynn
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, shares@ndzh.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'Advertising Segment Routing Policies in
BGP'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2024-11-11. 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


  A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e.,
  instructions) that represent a source-routed policy.  An SR Policy
  consists of one or more candidate paths, each consisting of one or
  more segment lists.  A headend may be provisioned with candidate
  paths for an SR Policy via several different mechanisms, e.g., CLI,
  NETCONF, PCEP, or BGP.

  This document specifies how BGP may be used to distribute SR Policy
  candidate paths.  It introduces a BGP SAFI to advertise a candidate
  path of a Segment Routing (SR) Policy and defines sub-TLVs for the
  Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for signaling information about these
  candidate paths.

  This documents updates RFC9012 with extensions to the Color Extended
  Community to support additional steering modes over SR Policy.




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


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2984/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5890/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5891/



The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc4272: BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy: Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies using BGP Link-State (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext: Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP SR Policy (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc6952: Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)



2024-10-21
09 Liz Flynn IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-10-21
09 Liz Flynn Last call announcement was changed
2024-10-18
09 Roman Danyliw Last call was requested
2024-10-18
09 Roman Danyliw Last call announcement was generated
2024-10-18
09 Roman Danyliw Ballot approval text was generated
2024-10-18
09 Roman Danyliw Ballot writeup was generated
2024-10-18
09 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-10-03
09 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-09.txt
2024-10-03
09 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-10-03
09 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-10-03
08 Bernie Volz Closed request for Early review by INTDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-10-03
08 Bernie Volz Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to Suresh Krishnan was marked no-response
2024-10-01
08 Clarence Filsfils New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-08.txt
2024-10-01
08 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-10-01
08 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-09-27
07 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)
2024-09-27
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-09-27
07 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-07.txt
2024-09-27
07 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-09-27
07 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-09-22
06 (System) Changed action holders to Stefano Previdi, Clarence Filsfils, Roman Danyliw, Paul Mattes, Dhanendra Jain, Ketan Talaulikar (IESG state changed)
2024-09-22
06 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2024-09-22
06 Roman Danyliw AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pzsbdsHMHYXXtCuBNH76DDYaRos/
2024-09-22
06 Roman Danyliw Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw
2024-07-26
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

1. Does the working group …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## 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 reviews:
Post WG-LC issues are kept in:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues

Implementation report:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement


1) OPS-DIR directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra Kumar
github tracking: all issues closed as of -05.txt
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/1


2) RTG-DIR Directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrGNrGNn6_U7GiEGMYhQ0rBK2Y0/
github tracking:
full text: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/2
all issues: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
status of -05: open issues: S2-02, S2-03 (partial fixes) [7/25] 
Shepherd's review sent in response to -05:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tlYtJwbNZYNatqUUasbxusHwWeE/
Status review for -06 text
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zOiZaKL98Z52mmsAx7SPWDHlmnM/
github issues for RTG-IR
Shepherd's review sent for -05 (tracked changes in github)
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/32

SEC-DIR Review:
original comment:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BEdfxxbUD-lDmrmiljSJhnaYk8E/
response:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WcJ_A2wHMBDNtzxdwf1WAnESEcA/

History of WG LCs:
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012.
The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
OPS-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra KumarWhy TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

SEC-DIR: Ready
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/NtawBFAsAZAXkH-FiwGc5rebzX4/

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01 and -03) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00 and -03)  by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
SECIDR Early review of (-04) - requested -04 (6/10/2024)
TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested - not given.

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

Clearly rewritten.
Only one suggestion is outstanding.  We agreed that the AD would check if these definitions should be added to text:
========
Controller:  A controller, in a computing context, is a hardware device or a software program that manages or directs the flow of data between two entities.
BGP Controller: A Route Reflector (RR) [RFC4456] which has a function of controlling BGP routes sent between RR (BGP) and client BGP speakers. 
Provisioning BGP controller:  Per [RFC9256], that BGP Controller (RR) whose additional application helps provision the                                                Segment Routing (SR).
=========

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?

Shepherd's comments: all issues were reviewed and checked multiple times.  If AD finds one, please let the shepherd know.

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

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work. 

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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.)

Nits only find one out-of-date reference
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-04 needs to be updated. It will be check in the next revision.

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

No all informative and normative references are valid.

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 references are correct.

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

None.

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

all normative references 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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-07-26
06 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-07-26
06 Susan Hares IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-07-26
06 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2024-07-26
06 Susan Hares Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2024-07-26
06 Susan Hares Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-07-26
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

1. Does the working group …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## 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 reviews:
Post WG-LC issues are kept in:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues

Implementation report:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement


1) OPS-DIR directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra Kumar
github tracking: all issues closed as of -05.txt
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/1


2) RTG-DIR Directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrGNrGNn6_U7GiEGMYhQ0rBK2Y0/
github tracking:
full text: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/2
all issues: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
status of -05: open issues: S2-02, S2-03 (partial fixes) [7/25] 
Shepherd's review sent in response to -05:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tlYtJwbNZYNatqUUasbxusHwWeE/
Status review for -06 text
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zOiZaKL98Z52mmsAx7SPWDHlmnM/
github issues for RTG-IR
Shepherd's review sent for -05 (tracked changes in github)
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/32

SEC-DIR Review:
original comment:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BEdfxxbUD-lDmrmiljSJhnaYk8E/
response:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WcJ_A2wHMBDNtzxdwf1WAnESEcA/

History of WG LCs:
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012.
The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
OPS-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra KumarWhy TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

SEC-DIR: Ready
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/NtawBFAsAZAXkH-FiwGc5rebzX4/

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01 and -03) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00 and -03)  by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
SECIDR Early review of (-04) - requested -04 (6/10/2024)
TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested - not given.

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

Clearly rewritten.
Only one suggestion is outstanding.  We agreed that the AD would check if these definitions should be added to text:
========
Controller:  A controller, in a computing context, is a hardware device or a software program that manages or directs the flow of data between two entities.
BGP Controller: A Route Reflector (RR) [RFC4456] which has a function of controlling BGP routes sent between RR (BGP) and client BGP speakers. 
Provisioning BGP controller:  Per [RFC9256], that BGP Controller (RR) whose additional application helps provision the                                                Segment Routing (SR).
=========

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?

Shepherd's comments: all issues were reviewed and checked multiple times.  If AD finds one, please let the shepherd know.

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

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work. 

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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.)

Nits only find one out-of-date reference
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-04 needs to be updated. It will be check in the next revision.

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

No all informative and normative references are valid.

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 references are correct.

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

None.

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

all normative references 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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-07-26
06 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

1) implementation report check
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement


## Document History …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

1) implementation report check
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement


## 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 reviews:
Post WG-LC issues are kept in:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues

Implementation report:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement


1) OPS-DIR directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra Kumar
github tracking: all issues closed as of -05.txt
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/1


2) RTG-DIR Directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrGNrGNn6_U7GiEGMYhQ0rBK2Y0/
github tracking:
full text: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/2
all issues: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
status of -05: open issues: S2-02, S2-03 (partial fixes) [7/25] 
Shepherd's review sent in response to -05:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tlYtJwbNZYNatqUUasbxusHwWeE/
Status review for -06 text
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zOiZaKL98Z52mmsAx7SPWDHlmnM/
github issues for RTG-IR
Shepherd's review sent for -05 (tracked changes in github)
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/32

SEC-DIR Review:
original comment:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BEdfxxbUD-lDmrmiljSJhnaYk8E/
response:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WcJ_A2wHMBDNtzxdwf1WAnESEcA/

History of WG LCs:
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012.
The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
OPS-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra KumarWhy TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

SEC-DIR: Ready
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/NtawBFAsAZAXkH-FiwGc5rebzX4/

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01 and -03) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00 and -03)  by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
SECIDR Early review of (-04) - requested -04 (6/10/2024)
TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested - not given.

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

Clearly rewritten.
Only one suggestion is outstanding.  We agreed that the AD would check if these definitions should be added to text:
========
Controller:  A controller, in a computing context, is a hardware device or a software program that manages or directs the flow of data between two entities.
BGP Controller: A Route Reflector (RR) [RFC4456] which has a function of controlling BGP routes sent between RR (BGP) and client BGP speakers. 
Provisioning BGP controller:  Per [RFC9256], that BGP Controller (RR) whose additional application helps provision the                                                Segment Routing (SR).
=========

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?

Shepherd's comments: all issues were reviewed and checked multiple times.  If AD finds one, please let the shepherd know.

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

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work. 

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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.)

Nits only find one out-of-date reference
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-04 needs to be updated. It will be check in the next revision.

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

No all informative and normative references are valid.

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 references are correct.

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

None.

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

all normative references 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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-07-26
06 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-06.txt
2024-07-26
06 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-07-26
06 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-07-25
05 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

Blocking issues:
1) Directorate reviews have been resolved …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

Blocking issues:
1) Directorate reviews have been resolved - except for partial resolution RTG-DIR S2-02, S2-03
2) NITs issues (on-06)
3) implementation report check

## 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 reviews:
Post WG-LC issues are kept in:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues

1) OPS-DIR directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra Kumar
github tracking: all issues closed as of -05.txt
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/1


2) RTG-DIR Directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrGNrGNn6_U7GiEGMYhQ0rBK2Y0/
github tracking:
full text: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/2
all issues: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
status of -05: open issues: S2-02, S2-03 (partial fixes) [7/25] 
Shepherd's review sent in response to -05:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tlYtJwbNZYNatqUUasbxusHwWeE/
github issues for RTG-IR
Shepherd's review sent for -05 (tracked changes in github)
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/32

SEC-DIR Review:
original comment:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BEdfxxbUD-lDmrmiljSJhnaYk8E/
response:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WcJ_A2wHMBDNtzxdwf1WAnESEcA/

History of WG LCs:
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012.
The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
OPS-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra KumarWhy TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

SEC-DIR: Ready
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/NtawBFAsAZAXkH-FiwGc5rebzX4/

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01 and -03) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00 and -03)  by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
SECIDR Early review of (-04) - requested -04 (6/10/2024)
TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested - not given.

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

Clearly rewritten.
Only one suggestion is outstanding.  We agreed that the AD would check if these definitions should be added to text:
Controller:  A controller, in a computing context, is a hardware device or a software program that manages or directs the flow of data between two entities.

open text for definitions:/
BGP Controller: A Route Reflector (RR) [RFC4456] which has a function of controlling BGP routes sent between RR (BGP) and client BGP speakers. 

Provisioning BGP controller:  Per [RFC9256], that BGP Controller (RR) whose additional application helps provision the                                                Segment Routing (SR)./


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?

Shepherd's comments: all issues reviewed and checked multiple times.  If AD finds one, please let the shepherd know.

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

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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.)

TBD - run nits on -06

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

No all informative and normative references are valid.

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 references are correct.

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

None.

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

all normative references 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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-07-22
05 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-05.txt
2024-07-22
05 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-07-22
05 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-07-01
04 Vincent Roca Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Vincent Roca. Sent review to list.
2024-06-13
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca
2024-06-10
04 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

Blocking issues:
1) Directorate reviews have issues (RTG-DIR, …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

Blocking issues:
1) Directorate reviews have issues (RTG-DIR, SEC-DIR, OPS-DIR). 
2) NITs issues
3) implementation report

## 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 reviews:
Post WG-LC issues are kept in:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues

1) OPS-DIR directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra Kumar
github tracking:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/1


2) RTG-DIR Directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrGNrGNn6_U7GiEGMYhQ0rBK2Y0/
github tracking:
full text: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/2
all issues: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
status of -04: open issues: 12, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26
Shepherd report sent in response:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/32


History of WG LCs:
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012.
The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
OPS-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra KumarWhy TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

SEC-DIR: Ready
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/NtawBFAsAZAXkH-FiwGc5rebzX4/

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01 and -03) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00 and -03)  by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
SECIDR Early review of (-04) - requested -04 (6/10/2024)
TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested - not given.

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

Clearly rewritten.
Shepherd's comments: (TBD after -05)

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?

Shepherd's comments: (TBD after -05)

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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.)

TBD - run nits on -05

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

No all informative and normative references are valid.

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 references are correct.

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

None.

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

all normative references 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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-06-10
04 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

Blocking issues:
1) Directorate reviews have issues (RTG-DIR, …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

Blocking issues:
1) Directorate reviews have issues (RTG-DIR, SEC-DIR, OPS-DIR). 
2) NITs issues
3) implementation report

## 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 reviews:
Post WG-LC issues are kept in:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues

1) OPS-DIR directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra Kumar
github tracking:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/1


2) RTG-DIR Directorate:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrGNrGNn6_U7GiEGMYhQ0rBK2Y0/
github tracking:
full text: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/2
all issues: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues
status of -04: open issues: 12, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26
Shepherd report sent in response:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/issues/32


History of WG LCs:
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012.
The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
OPS-DIR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/JFInEGfu1GpIgTuCTWsNMJbGwp0/
author: Nagendra KumarWhy TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

SEC-DIR:

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01 and -03) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00 and -03)  by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
SECIDR Early review of (-18) by Vincent Roca: Ready
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18-secdir-early-roca-2022-0
7-18/TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested - not given.

Requested SEC-DIR (of -04), but earlier review OKed the draft. 

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

[TBD - ]

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?

[TBD - need Routing list]

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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

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

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

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.
[TBD]

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?

[TBD]

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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-06-10
04 Susan Hares Requested Early review by SECDIR
2024-05-01
04 Juan-Carlos Zúñiga Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2024-04-30
04 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-04.txt
2024-04-30
04 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-04-30
04 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-04-27
03 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-03.txt
2024-04-27
03 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-04-27
03 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-03-19
02 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

Blocking issues:
1) Directorate reviews have issues (RTG-DIR, …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

Blocking issues:
1) Directorate reviews have issues (RTG-DIR, SEC-DIR, OPS-DIR). 
2) NITs issues
3) implementation report

## Document History

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

History -
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012. The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00) by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested

Waiting for checks on RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR.
Requesting SEC-DIR.

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

[TBD - ]

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?

[TBD - need Routing list]

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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

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

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

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.
[TBD]

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?

[TBD]

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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-19
02 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

1. Does the working group …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

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

History -
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012. The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work
RTG

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00) by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested

Waiting for checks on RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR.
Requesting SEC-DIR.

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues



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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

[TBD - links to Shephd rreviews]

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?

[TBD - need Routing list]

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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

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

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

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.
[TBD]

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?

[TBD]

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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-19
02 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

1. Does the working group …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

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

History -
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012. The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations (details on 5 implementations)
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work
RTG

Review as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
OPSDIR Early review (of -01) by Nagendra Nainar  Has issues
RTGDIR Early review (of -00) by Zhaohui Zhang  Has issues
TSVART Early review (of -00) by David Black On the Right Track
INTDIR Early Review due 2024-02-29 Requested

Waiting for checks on RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR.
Requesting SEC-DIR.

Review a draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
RTGDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Mohamed Boucadair  Has issues
SECDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Vincent Roca Ready
INTDIR Early review (of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy -18) by Brian Haberman Ready w/issues



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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

[TBD - links to Shephd rreviews]

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?

[TBD - need Routing list]

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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

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

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

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.
[TBD]

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?

[TBD]

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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-19
02 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

1. Does the working group …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

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

History -
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC

Please note that the shepherd noted after the 2nd WG LC the issues with RFC9012. The final call was explicit that the RFC9012 format was used, but not the subTLVs and validation.

Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid, but no comments were made on the
use of RFC9012.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work
RTG

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

[TBD - links to Shephd rreviews]

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?

[TBD - need Routing list]

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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

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

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

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.
[TBD]

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?

[TBD]

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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-19
02 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

1. Does the working group …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.* [RFC4758]

## Document History

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

History -
6 steps: 1) 1st WG LC, 2) Wait for RFC7752, 3) AD review requires split (implemented/non-implemented), 
4) review split (2nd WG LC), 5) Shepherd notes RFC9012 issues, 6) 3rd WG LC
Dates: 1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23), 
3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/
Result of WG LC (3/19/2024)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rLJzLz_U8ZUuBaTBg7LIOh6CZ0o/

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

At the 3rd WG LC, consensus was solid.

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 discontent to 3rd WG LC.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
6 implementations
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work
RTG

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

[TBD - links to Shephd rreviews]

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?

[TBD - need Routing list]

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

1. Stefano Previdi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/URkVWm6k-mfSNqs9qYcfeISUR9c/

2. Clarence Filsfils
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PkArjfS7RJqGglyVXSGmoeTz8JQ/

3.  Ketan Talaulikar, Ed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2VaUQTIP0KqO5X3WGM6ThnlUQ8/

4. Paul Mattes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TVTu_1hwgZozFLmHhfQnft5O7Kw/

5. Dhanendra Jain
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/16MkEx6jVqfwUEGDtvtaKCPNBJg/

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

Total number of authors: 5, 
No contributors.

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

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

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

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.
[TBD]

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?

[TBD]

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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-19
02 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-03-16
02 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-02.txt
2024-03-16
02 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-03-16
02 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-03-13
01 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps: a) 1st WG LC, b) Wait for RFc7752, c) require split,  d) review split, e) RFc9012 issues, f) 2nd WG LC
1st: 8/06/2021, Split-IETF 3/15/2023, Split ok: 10/10-10/23/2023 (ok 10/23),  3rd WG LC: 2/15-3/18/2024

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)?
6 implementations
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

[TBD - links to Shephd rreviews]

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?

[TBD - need Routing list]

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

Missing IPR
1. Clarence Filsfils

2. Paul Mattes

3. Dhanendra Jain

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

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

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

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

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.
[TBD]

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?

[TBD]

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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-03-04
01 Nagendra Nainar Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-03-04
01 Nagendra Nainar Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar.
2024-03-04
01 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-01.txt
2024-03-04
01 Ketan Talaulikar New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar)
2024-03-04
01 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision
2024-02-29
00 Zhaohui Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-02-29
00 Zhaohui Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang.
2024-02-28
00 David Black
Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: David Black. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier …
Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: David Black. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-02-28
00 David Black Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: David Black.
2024-02-24
00 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

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

History - 6 steps: a) 1st WG LC, b) Wait for RFc7752, c) require split,  d) review split, e) RFc9012 issues, f) 2nd WG LC


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

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)?
6 implementations
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

## Additional Reviews

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

Requested Early Review of RTGDIR, OPSDIR, TSVART, SECDIR
Why OPSDIR + SECDIR:  operational + security issues with the SR Candidate paths
Why TSVART: Link to the emerging Intent/Color routing work

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

No formal review criteria - MIB, Yang, Media type, URI
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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

No Yang module.
Another Yang module needs to add this to the BGP Base. 
Will add to IDR Wiki.

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?

[TBD - links to Shephd rreviews]

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?

[TBD - need Routing list]

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?

Proposed standard - 6 implementations + SR work.
Issues - BGP does not do full validation

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

Call for IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b8VABzT4fTyvY0j6_FuA04RYiHY/

Missing IPR
1. Clarence Filsfils

2. Paul Mattes

3. Dhanendra Jain

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

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

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

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

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.
[TBD]

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?

[TBD]

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.

Yes - [RFC9012]

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

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

[TBD]

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-02-24
00 Susan Hares Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-02-24
00 Susan Hares Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares
2024-02-19
00 Magnus Westerlund Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to David Black
2024-02-17
00 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Zhaohui Zhang
2024-02-16
00 Susan Hares Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-02-16
00 Susan Hares Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-02-16
00 Carlos Pignataro Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar
2024-02-15
00 Susan Hares Requested Early review by TSVART
2024-02-15
00 Susan Hares Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2024-02-15
00 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2024-02-15
00 Susan Hares Requested Early review by INTDIR
2024-02-15
00 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-02-04
00 Susan Hares This document now replaces draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy instead of None
2024-02-04
00 Ketan Talaulikar New version available: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00.txt
2024-02-04
00 Susan Hares WG -00 approved
2024-02-02
00 Ketan Talaulikar Set submitter to "Ketan Talaulikar ", replaces to draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy and sent approval email to group chairs: idr-chairs@ietf.org
2024-02-02
00 Ketan Talaulikar Uploaded new revision