As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard, this is appropriate since this describes a common deployment
option of the IOAM proposed standard.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records operational
and telemetry information in the packet while the packet traverses a path
between two points in the network. This document outlines how IOAM data fields
are encapsulated in IPv6
Working Group Summary:
To my knowledge the working group process has been fairly smooth and
uncontroversial. The document was at first proposed to the 6man wokring group,
but there it was decided that it would be more appropriate for ippm to take
responsibility for it.
The specification has good implementation support, in particular it has been
implemented in the Linux kernel. Asside from a few small nits the shepherd has
no concerns with the document quality.
Shepherd: Marcus ihlar
Responsible AD: Martin Duke
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I have reviewed this document as part of the shepherding process. Furthermore,
this document has received substantial review as part of the working group
process. With the exception from a few small nits this document shoudld be
ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No, reviews have been recived by ippm participants and 6man participants.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No particular concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
The authors have confirmed that, to their knowledge, there are no more IPR
declarations other than https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3529/.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There is one IPR disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3529/) that
references this document, it was done prior to WG adoption and I could not see
much discussion about it.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There seems to be pretty solid consensus, there's quite a large set of
contributors and some good feedback from the 6man wg has been considered.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise 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.)
Not to my knowledge.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
The ID nits tool produced a single comment about the publication date of the
document. Nits found by me: Section 4, paragraph 2 has a reference to section 4
of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-17, this one should probably be to section 5 of
that document. Last paragraph of section 4 has a spelling mistake: lenght ->
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
The two normative references that are not yet published RFCs are
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-17 which is in AUTH48 and
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-07 which is under AD evaluation.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
This document adds two values to the the Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop
Options sub-registry of IPv6 Parameters.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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