Shepherd writeup

(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?

The Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'.  
The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header.

(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:

     This document describes the IS-IS extensions for segment routing for various IGP segment identifiers laid out in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. 
     All the extensions defined are muti-topology aware and can support both IPv4 and IPv6 address families for MPLS data plane. 
     This also describes various router capabilities needed for these SR extensions.
Working Group Summary
This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG at various stages of the document progression.
The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG.

All major comments have been addressed.  The draft is ready for publication.
Few comments are sent to the list and those are worked out by co-authors. 
Draft version 17 addresses shepherd's comments.

Document Quality

Proposed extensions have been implemented by 4 vendors-os/implementations.

Some of the interoperability details are publicly available from EANTC.

Uma Chunduri is the Document Shepherd.
Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

 The draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd.
 Minor comments are sent to the list and are those are addressed by co-authors.  Published,  version 17 reflect the changes.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

 No concerns.

(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.

(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.

   Yes.  Every author has confirmed. 
   All contributors to this document too responded.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Following 2 IPRs have been declared.

Yes.  The authors have been asked on the WG list about IPR.  There haven't been any concerns raised on the list.

(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?   

The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG.
(10) 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.) 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
There are some warnings form idnits but these are of no consequence. 
From idnits:
 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '100' on line 1009
     'SRGB = [100, 199]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '199' on line 1009
     'SRGB = [100, 199]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1000' on line 1010
     '[1000, 1099]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1099' on line 1010
     '[1000, 1099]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '500' on line 1011
     '[500, 599]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '599' on line 1011
     '[500, 599]...'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 9 comments (--).

Comments indicated by idnit tool is not a problem as tool is assuming these are references.
Idnits also does not allow that a non-RFC document can be a normative reference – but clearly ISO 10589 is a normative reference.
Hence none of them is an issue.

These documents have 8 front page authors and given the lengths and involvement of the authors an exception for the 5 authors rule can be made.
However, authors are still discussing among them on this point (up to responsible AD). See discussion below:

 Jeff and Stephane have graciously agreed to be moved to the Contributors section (thank you)!

This leaves us with 6 authors - all of whom have made significant contributions at various stages of the draft work.
We would like to proceed with these 6 authors.

Below is a short summary of each author's contributions (including Jeff and Stephane):

. Stefano - lead editor for the first four years of the draft
. Les - lead editor for the past year. Many in depth reviews during the prior years
. Bruno - Many useful comments during many in depth reviews.
. Hannes - contributed significant amount of text
. Ahmed - many in depth reviews w input based on early prototypes of the functionality
. Clarence - as architect for SR he insured that text for this document - which was the first document defining protocol extensions for SR - remained consistent w the SR architecture

. Stephane - many in depth reviews
. Jeff - many in depth reviews

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Parameters defined in this document should be configured from respective IGP SR yang model. Base SR yang model (draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang) is also relevant to this document and it is quite stable.
No need for such formal review.

(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?


(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.

The state of other documents remains unchanged.

(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 RFC 5226).

    IS-IS Segment Routing extensions required allocation of a number of
     code points from the IS-IS TLV code point registry. These code
     points were pre-allocated through IANA early allocation as 
     described in RFC 7120.

(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, etc.