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 |