Traffic Steering using BGP FlowSpec with SR Policy
draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-03-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to John Scudder |
2024-02-01
|
03 | (System) | Changed action holders to Andrew Alston (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-01
|
03 | Andrew Alston | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2023-11-16
|
03 | Andy Smith | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Andy Smith. Sent review to list. |
2023-10-09
|
03 | Ned Smith | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ned Smith. Sent review to list. |
2023-09-28
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Ned Smith |
2023-09-12
|
03 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andy Smith |
2023-09-08
|
03 | Keyur Patel | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-09-08
|
03 | Keyur Patel | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2023-09-08
|
03 | Keyur Patel | # 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? Adoption: call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P_me5zYnyFfgqcL_26-UzdyCR_U/ Consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vrCvdtNa0QJzpggxD6JIHmGavkc/ Responders to call: 20 (4 authors, 16 people) Date of Adoption call: 7/29/2022 to 8/29/2022 Consensus posted: 9/10/2022 Adoption of draft: 3 questions asked: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt? all agree. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect (all agree) 3) helpful to deployments Implementation report: 4 (or 5) implementations (hauwei, h3c, zte, unitechs ruije) Adoption call: pointed out a few errors. One question asked: Should this be standards document? The IDR shepherd/chair will consult AD to determine whether this is an informational or Standards document. That being said, IDR Chairs/Shepherd does believe this draft is an informational document. Shepherd's summary: This document is ready for WG LC once the status question is answered. Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cB5pJTaJicdym7QA8mXzZYxZKkU/ 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Multiple Implementations (4 or 5) exist. Please refer to section 6.1 in the draft that discusses interop status. ## 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. No. 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. It is an informational document. So it doesn't need Yang, MIB media type or a URI type extensions. 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]? N/A. No Yang modules are present or required. 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. WGLC is successfully done. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A. 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? Informational. 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. Adoption IPR: Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0UHNcNU1O28CjDmd_5BvJbIjP28/ Weiying Jiang (jiangwenying@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/D9HQ07MPNnUOUNTpze_mibyVFoY/ Yisong Liu (liuyisong@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MDu6TKlkAnTn_w1jq7Gvx2UKYLk/ Shuanglong Chen (chenshuanglong@huawei.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBeygCSwx24bkpLOBtHPD5uNans/ Shunwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZdxZXZ_Ucz1RBmx8gmUnOAYjwbs/ 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Minor nits and warnings exists. 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. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). No request is made to IANA in this document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ N/A. |
2023-09-08
|
03 | Keyur Patel | Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2023-09-08
|
03 | Keyur Patel | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-09-08
|
03 | Keyur Patel | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-09-08
|
03 | Keyur Patel | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-09-08
|
03 | Keyur Patel | # 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? Adoption: call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P_me5zYnyFfgqcL_26-UzdyCR_U/ Consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vrCvdtNa0QJzpggxD6JIHmGavkc/ Responders to call: 20 (4 authors, 16 people) Date of Adoption call: 7/29/2022 to 8/29/2022 Consensus posted: 9/10/2022 Adoption of draft: 3 questions asked: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt? all agree. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect (all agree) 3) helpful to deployments Implementation report: 4 (or 5) implementations (hauwei, h3c, zte, unitechs ruije) Adoption call: pointed out a few errors. One question asked: Should this be standards document? The IDR shepherd/chair will consult AD to determine whether this is an informational or Standards document. That being said, IDR Chairs/Shepherd does believe this draft is an informational document. Shepherd's summary: This document is ready for WG LC once the status question is answered. Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cB5pJTaJicdym7QA8mXzZYxZKkU/ 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Multiple Implementations (4 or 5) exist. Please refer to section 6.1 in the draft that discusses interop status. ## 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. No. 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. It is an informational document. So it doesn't need Yang, MIB media type or a URI type extensions. 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]? N/A. No Yang modules are present or required. 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. WGLC is successfully done. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A. 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? Informational. 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. Adoption IPR: Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0UHNcNU1O28CjDmd_5BvJbIjP28/ Weiying Jiang (jiangwenying@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/D9HQ07MPNnUOUNTpze_mibyVFoY/ Yisong Liu (liuyisong@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MDu6TKlkAnTn_w1jq7Gvx2UKYLk/ Shuanglong Chen (chenshuanglong@huawei.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBeygCSwx24bkpLOBtHPD5uNans/ Shunwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZdxZXZ_Ucz1RBmx8gmUnOAYjwbs/ 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Minor nits and warnings exists. 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. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). No request is made to IANA in this document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ N/A. |
2023-07-17
|
03 | Susan Hares | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2023-07-16
|
03 | Keyur Patel | # 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? Adoption: call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P_me5zYnyFfgqcL_26-UzdyCR_U/ Consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vrCvdtNa0QJzpggxD6JIHmGavkc/ Responders to call: 20 (4 authors, 16 people) Date of Adoption call: 7/29/2022 to 8/29/2022 Consensus posted: 9/10/2022 Adoption of draft: 3 questions asked: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt? all agree. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect (all agree) 3) helpful to deployments Implementation report: 4 (or 5) implementations (hauwei, h3c, zte, unitechs ruije) Adoption call: pointed out a few errors. One question asked: Should this be standards document? The IDR shepherd/chair will consult AD to determine whether this is an informational or Standards document. Shepherd's summary: This document is ready for WG LC once the status question is answered. Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cB5pJTaJicdym7QA8mXzZYxZKkU/ 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Multiple Implementations (4 or 5) exist. ## 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. No. 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. It is an informational document. So it doesn't need Yang, MIB media type or a URI type extensions. 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]? N/A. No Yang modules are present or required. 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. WGLC is successfully done. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A. 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? Informational. 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. Adoption IPR: Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0UHNcNU1O28CjDmd_5BvJbIjP28/ Weiying Jiang (jiangwenying@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/D9HQ07MPNnUOUNTpze_mibyVFoY/ Yisong Liu (liuyisong@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MDu6TKlkAnTn_w1jq7Gvx2UKYLk/ Shuanglong Chen (chenshuanglong@huawei.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBeygCSwx24bkpLOBtHPD5uNans/ Shunwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZdxZXZ_Ucz1RBmx8gmUnOAYjwbs/ 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Minor nits exists. 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.. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). No request is made to IANA in this document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ N/A. |
2023-06-16
|
03 | Shunwan Zhuang | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-03.txt |
2023-06-16
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-06-16
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Jiang Wenying , Shuanglong Chen , Shunwan Zhuang , Yisong Liu |
2023-06-16
|
03 | Shunwan Zhuang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-10
|
02 | Keyur Patel | # 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? Adoption: call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P_me5zYnyFfgqcL_26-UzdyCR_U/ Consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vrCvdtNa0QJzpggxD6JIHmGavkc/ Responders to call: 20 (4 authors, 16 people) Date of Adoption call: 7/29/2022 to 8/29/2022 Consensus posted: 9/10/2022 Adoption of draft: 3 questions asked: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt? all agree. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect (all agree) 3) helpful to deployments Implementation report: 4 (or 5) implementations (hauwei, h3c, zte, unitechs ruije) Adoption call: pointed out a few errors. One question asked: Should this be standards document? The IDR shepherd/chair will consult AD to determine whether this is an informational or Standards document. Shepherd's summary: This document is ready for WG LC once the status question is answered. Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cB5pJTaJicdym7QA8mXzZYxZKkU/ 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Multiple Implementations (4 or 5) exist. ## 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. No. 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. It is an informational document. So it doesn't need Yang, MIB media type or a URI type extensions. 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]? N/A. No Yang modules are present or required. 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. WGLC is successfully done. [TBD] ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A. [TBD] 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? Informational. 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. Adoption IPR: Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0UHNcNU1O28CjDmd_5BvJbIjP28/ Weiying Jiang (jiangwenying@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/D9HQ07MPNnUOUNTpze_mibyVFoY/ Yisong Liu (liuyisong@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MDu6TKlkAnTn_w1jq7Gvx2UKYLk/ Shuanglong Chen (chenshuanglong@huawei.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBeygCSwx24bkpLOBtHPD5uNans/ Shunwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZdxZXZ_Ucz1RBmx8gmUnOAYjwbs/ 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Minor nits exists. 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? Yes. [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No.. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). No request is made to IANA in this document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ N/A. |
2023-06-10
|
02 | Keyur Patel | Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com, keyur@arrcus.com from shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-06-10
|
02 | Keyur Patel | Document shepherd changed to Keyur Patel |
2023-06-09
|
02 | Susan Hares | draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-02.txt - 2 week WG LC (4/14/2023 to 4/28/2023) |
2023-06-09
|
02 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2023-03-05
|
02 | Shunwan Zhuang | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-02.txt |
2023-03-05
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-03-05
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Jiang Wenying , Shuanglong Chen , Shunwan Zhuang , Yisong Liu |
2023-03-05
|
02 | Shunwan Zhuang | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-26
|
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? Adoption: call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P_me5zYnyFfgqcL_26-UzdyCR_U/ Consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vrCvdtNa0QJzpggxD6JIHmGavkc/ Responders to call: 20 (4 authors, 16 people) Date of Adoption call: 7/29/2022 to 8/29/2022 Consensus posted: 9/10/2022 Adoption of draft: 3 questions asked: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt? all agree. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect (all agree) 3) helpful to deployments Implementation report: 4 (or 5) implementations (hauwei, h3c, zte, unitechs ruije) Adoption call: pointed out a few errors. One question asked: Should this be standards document? The IDR shepherd/chair will consult AD to determine whether this is an informational or Standards document. Shepherd's summary: This document is ready for WG LC once the status question is answered. Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cB5pJTaJicdym7QA8mXzZYxZKkU/ 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. Adoption IPR: Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0UHNcNU1O28CjDmd_5BvJbIjP28/ Weiying Jiang (jiangwenying@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/D9HQ07MPNnUOUNTpze_mibyVFoY/ Yisong Liu (liuyisong@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MDu6TKlkAnTn_w1jq7Gvx2UKYLk/ Shuanglong Chen (chenshuanglong@huawei.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBeygCSwx24bkpLOBtHPD5uNans/ Shunwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZdxZXZ_Ucz1RBmx8gmUnOAYjwbs/ 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.) 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-10-12
|
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? Adoption: call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P_me5zYnyFfgqcL_26-UzdyCR_U/ Consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vrCvdtNa0QJzpggxD6JIHmGavkc/ Responders to call: 20 (4 authors, 16 people) Adoption of draft: 3 questions asked: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt? all agree. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect (all agree) 3) helpful to deployments Implementation report: 4 (or 5) implementations (hauwei, h3c, zte, unitechs ruije) Adoption call: pointed out a few errors. One question asked: Should this be standards document? The IDR shepherd/chair will consult AD to determine whether this is an informational or Standards document. Shepherd's summary: This document is ready for WG LC once the status question is answered. Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cB5pJTaJicdym7QA8mXzZYxZKkU/ 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. Adoption IPR: Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0UHNcNU1O28CjDmd_5BvJbIjP28/ Weiying Jiang (jiangwenying@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/D9HQ07MPNnUOUNTpze_mibyVFoY/ Yisong Liu (liuyisong@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MDu6TKlkAnTn_w1jq7Gvx2UKYLk/ Shuanglong Chen (chenshuanglong@huawei.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBeygCSwx24bkpLOBtHPD5uNans/ Shunwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZdxZXZ_Ucz1RBmx8gmUnOAYjwbs/ 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.) 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-10-12
|
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? Adoption: call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P_me5zYnyFfgqcL_26-UzdyCR_U/ Consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vrCvdtNa0QJzpggxD6JIHmGavkc/ Responders to call: 20 (4 authors, 16 people) Adoption of draft: 3 questions asked: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt? all agree. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect (all agree) 3) helpful to deployments Implementation report: 4 (or 5) implementations (hauwei, h3c, zte, unitechs ruije) Adoption call: pointed out a few errors. One question asked: Should this be standards document? The IDR shepherd/chair will consult AD to determine whether this is an informational or Standards document. Shepherd's summary: This document is ready for WG LC once the status question is answered. Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cB5pJTaJicdym7QA8mXzZYxZKkU/ 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. Adoption IPR: Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0UHNcNU1O28CjDmd_5BvJbIjP28/ Weiying Jiang (jiangwenying@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/D9HQ07MPNnUOUNTpze_mibyVFoY/ Yisong Liu (liuyisong@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MDu6TKlkAnTn_w1jq7Gvx2UKYLk/ Shuanglong Chen (chenshuanglong@huawei.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBeygCSwx24bkpLOBtHPD5uNans/ Shunwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZdxZXZ_Ucz1RBmx8gmUnOAYjwbs/ 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.) 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-10-12
|
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? Adoption: call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P_me5zYnyFfgqcL_26-UzdyCR_U/ Consensus: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vrCvdtNa0QJzpggxD6JIHmGavkc/ Responders to call: 20 (4 authors, 16 people) Adoption of draft: 3 questions asked: 1) Do you agree with extending 8955 and 8956 to carry the action bit [C] found for IPv4 and IPv6 found draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02.txt? all agree. 2) Do you agree with this document use of this feature in addition to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect (all agree) 3) helpful to deployments Implementation report: 4 (or 5) implementations (hauwei, h3c, zte, unitechs ruije) Adoption call: pointed out a few errors. One question asked: Should this be standards document? The IDR shepherd/chair will consult AD to determine whether this is an informational or Standards document. Shepherd's summary: This document is ready for WG LC once the status question is answered. 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. Adoption IPR: Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0UHNcNU1O28CjDmd_5BvJbIjP28/ Weiying Jiang (jiangwenying@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/D9HQ07MPNnUOUNTpze_mibyVFoY/ Yisong Liu (liuyisong@chinamobile.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MDu6TKlkAnTn_w1jq7Gvx2UKYLk/ Shuanglong Chen (chenshuanglong@huawei.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBeygCSwx24bkpLOBtHPD5uNans/ Shunwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZdxZXZ_Ucz1RBmx8gmUnOAYjwbs/ 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.) 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-10-12
|
01 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-12
|
01 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2022-10-11
|
01 | Susan Hares | This document now replaces draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy instead of None |
2022-10-09
|
01 | Shunwan Zhuang | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-01.txt |
2022-10-09
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-10-09
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Jiang Wenying , Shuanglong Chen , Shunwan Zhuang , Yisong Liu |
2022-10-09
|
01 | Shunwan Zhuang | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-27
|
00 | Shunwan Zhuang | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-00.txt |
2022-09-27
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-09-27
|
00 | Shunwan Zhuang | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Gyan Mishra , Jiang Wenying , Shuanglong Chen , Shunwan Zhuang , Yisong Liu |
2022-09-27
|
00 | Shunwan Zhuang | Uploaded new revision |