# Document Shepherd Writeup
*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors 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?
The WG consensus represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
The strongest criticism has been related to not being fully aligned with
the data model described in: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang. There have been
disagreements on the usefulness of this feature (why is there a need for
IOAM capability discovery within a limited domain?).
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)?
There are no current implementations known to the shepherd or the authors.
ZTE and China Telecom have expressed that they intend to implement the
solution described in the document.
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
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.
n/a
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
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.
n/a
### 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?
The document is needed (as expressed by some WG members) and technically
sound. There is room for improvement of the language in the document, but
overall it's ready to progress.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed standard as it builds upon other IOAM standards such as RFC 9197.
The datatracker state attributes reflect this intent.
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
emails.
There is a single IPR [13] relating to IOAM in general. The authors have
confirmed that they are not aware of any additional IPRs.
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
Yes.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
guidelines document.
The abstract consists of several abbreviations, none of them expanded.
Section 3:
References to ioam-data (RFC 9197) point to the wrong section numbers:
IOAM-Trace-Type field is defined in section 4.4 of RFC 9197.
Namespace-ID field is defined in section 4.3 of RFC 9197.
IOAM-POT-Type field is defined in section 4.5 of RFC 9197.
IOAM-E2E-Type field is defined in section 4.6 of RFC 9197.
ID nits output:
Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data has been published as RFC
9197
Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-07
Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-18
Outdated reference: A later version (-01) exists of draft-xiao-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state-00
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
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?
n/a
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export which is
currently under IESG evaluation.
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.
n/a
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][12]).
Contains a request for a new registry group with an appropriate name:
"In-Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities Parameters".
Two registries are proposed for the group:
IOAM SoP Capability Registry
IOAM TSF Capability Registry
Both registries have descriptive names and short descriptions with
references to relevant technical content.
There's a small nit in section 5.2 which states that the registry
defines three code points. It actually defines four, and assigns
three.
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.
n/a
[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/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[13]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3531/