# 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/