# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
## 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?
Early Allocation for Segment List ID TLV (6/7/2024)
[RFC98300] defines Segment List Sub-TLV.
As the draft states:
Section 5.7.4 of [RFC9857] defines an SR Segment List Identifier sub-
TLV for reporting the identifier associated with a specific SID list.
This document defines extensions to BGP SR Policy to specify the
identifier of an SR Segment List.
This draft specifies a Segment list Identifier per Candidate Path.
The utility of this was debated by Spring and IDR
(see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/JVzsniFIj3sSQ93HT4Sl4fbJDpE/)
.
An agreement in Spring and IDR as reached on the text,
and a cross-WG section was added to appendix A.
(Appendix A will be removed from the document prior to publication.)
For the "details" see the shepherd's review:
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/Shepherd-SR-BGP-LS/BGP-SR/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id
At IETF-126, several Chinese operators expressed their need for this feature.
The WG LC was sent to both IDR, Spring and PCE (5/11/2026 to 5/31/2026).
The response on IDR was 23 people plus the authors.
[https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SAk6o9KDYevywaRke-QZendYiXk/)
After the Consensus was called on June 2, 2026.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/H1zOeASlDljjNA08IsJItfBvD7o/
The authors addressed the SECDIR review in version -11.
(review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/18KaUo9x7xU8xeGneAs2pchoWVw)
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
During the last 3-4 months, a discussion occurred prior to the WG LC.
The discussion focused on whether the segment list was for a single
Candidate Policy AND whether this was useful.
The conclusion was the feature was useful and desired.
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. By the end of the consensus decision all members were settle on publication.
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)?
Implementation report is found at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id
Two implementations: H3C and ZTE
## 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.
Yes. These interact with Spring and PCE technologies.
This technology can be used by SRv6OPS.
There is a Cross-WG appendix (Appendix A) that describes any cross-WG 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.
None.
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]?
None.
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 language in document. Shepherd reviews at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/idr/Shepherd-SR-BGP-LS/BGP-SR/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes - There is a NIT for
== Outdated reference: A later version (-27) exists of
draft-ietf-pce-multipath-26
If the reviewing AD has a comment, this NIT will be addressed in the next
version. If the reviewing AD does not have a comment, the shepherd will
instruct the authors to build a new draft.
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?
yes.
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. Augments [RFC9830] with a new SubTLV.
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 allowed 3 weeks for IPR statement.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SAk6o9KDYevywaRke-QZendYiXk/
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes. Links below.
Changwang Lin
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/p-fKeHDouPHJERuPJaGRvLn2aw8/
Weiqiang Cheng
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7d2q6Pvyup0ZNfngNtUw5h8IuA/
Yao Liu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ftj4dXQxZqXD0zbdkyqWmnJJcpY/
Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/B9M8v3wpWrxjjL8R_vBM37xrPBI/
Mengxiao Chen
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bfWX_H-J-yPYLNDSLom0TkM-EmI/
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 - (see above) only relate to version
== Outdated reference: A later version (-27) exists of
draft-ietf-pce-multipath-26
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
No.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No. All are RFCs.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No. Only augments [RFC9830].
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]).
IANA did an early allocation, and pre-check this one.
(If I missed anything, please let the shepherd know.)
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.
None:
[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/