LISP Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-lisp-te-25

[Ballot comment]
Hi Padma, all,

Thank you for your effort to address the comments raised in my previous ballot [1]. Given the intended Experimental Status, I think that the changes made since -21 [2] are great.

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/v82np6l3OCGORIrLZO9s-g_Ywmw/

[2] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-lisp-te-21&url2=draft-ietf-lisp-te-24&difftype=--html

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for adding text to explain why publication is requested as EXP, and addressing my question about the ELP-probing mechanism.

I'd strongly encourage changing the opening sentence of section 2, to insert the word “Experimental” before extension.

Please consider the following:

- Please expand LISP in the abstract.
- Please also define all abbreviations on first use, I expect this will hardly increase the word count much and can save reader pain.

[Ballot comment]
I support Gorry's DISCUSS - I am also unsure why this is an Experimental doc, and not a BCP or Informational one.

nit:    MUST choose to drop the packet

why not simply: MUST drop the packet. The use of MUST and "choose" seem odd to me.

[Ballot discuss]
I would like to discuss the procedural elements of this document’s advancement. I observe that:

-- The WG chair (Padma) who called the WGLC (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/wXb2V_yZxFyXFV0gn0EinzNvTDE/) and declared consensus to publish (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/TrBH2rZuqF3nhFZyV7-cYfNVwEw/) on -20 is now a listed document author as of -21.

-- There don’t appear to be material changes between the -20 and -21 drafts.  The diff (https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-lisp-te-20&url2=draft-ietf-lisp-te-21&difftype=--html) suggests only additional example text.  I was looking for a large blob of text changes which typically trigger late-stage changes in the author list.

-- The document shepherd is also a document author.

-- The shepherd’s report says, “The document was supported by 14 votes (appropriate for the WG) and there were no objections.”  My review of the WGLC thread (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/TrBH2rZuqF3nhFZyV7-cYfNVwEw/) shows that 3 non-authors responding.

As I did not follow the entire lifecycle of this document, it isn't clear what transpired.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Peter Yee for the GENART review.  The promised changes (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/hz0tj9BXoB3AHlGRV9mSY-cmmPQ/) to his review have not been merged into the draft.  Please do so.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

I support Gorry's DISCUSS related to ELP probing. It seems to me that ELP Probing (section 7) is an integral part of the LISP TE solution. Without this feature, I wondering how an operator could monitor/verify these LISP TE paths. And if my understanding is correct then, draft-filyurin-lisp-elp-probing that is listed as informative should become a normative reference.

Regarding the experimental status for this draft, I note that the shepherd's report indicates that implementations exist. That conveys implementation experience has already been achieved. I guess the reason why this is experimental is because it relies on LCAF (RFC8060) which is in experimental status. This is not an issue per se with this document, but that the WG perhaps needs to reprioritize its work in promoting experimental documents to PS before sending more experimental documents for publication to the IESG. AFAIK LCAF and Vendor specific LCAFs are widely implemented and deployed LISP features and quite foundational but remain as experimental - please correct if I've got it wrong. So, more of a feedback to the WG chairs/AD.

Regarding Section 8 Service Chaining, I support Med's DISCUSS point. The text says "ITR can encapsulate packets to the RTR which will decapsulate and deliver packets to a scrubber service device." - however, there is no protocol specification that indicates which packets the RTR should send to the scrubber service? Is the RTR itself running the scrubber service and "all" LISP packets sent to it are subject to the scrubber? More details and clarifications will help. I would expect that the ELPs need some indication of the RTR also doing extra service functions?

Regarding Section 10 Multicast, I believe some references to LISP multicast documents are necessary. Perhaps RFC6831 can be referenced again here. I am not sure if any other is needed.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lisp-te-21
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. I am balloting NoObjection *because* it is an experimental document, else I would ballot DISCUSS (see points on section 5.4 and 7).

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Padma Pillay-Esnault for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Shepherd's write-up

I am a little puzzled to see the shepherd listed as authors as well; this is quite unusual. I guess that the LISP chair/shepperd was added as an author late in the process for the last mile of this document.

### Section 2

Please add a reference to LISP RFC(s).

More serious, I wonder whether the IETF needs to have yet another TE mechanism (The ELP really looks like SRv6 or SR-MPLS SID list), but I guess that this can be run as an experiment.

### Section 3

What is a `PETR`?

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file format ;-)

### Section 4

Suggest adding the nodes X & Y already in figure 1.

### Section 5

Where are the S-bit and L-bit defined ? Probably in RFC 8060, but let's be explicit.

### Section 5.4

Relying on the TTL only for loop avoidance is a severe limitation that would not be acceptable in a proposed standard to be clear. A hostile participant could then create a 255 tunnels loop if I understand correctly.

### Section 7

I am afraid that [I-D.filyurin-lisp-elp-probing] is a normative reference.

### Section 8

s/One example is to implement a *honey-pot* service/One example is to implement a *packet scrubber* service/ ?

[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS 1: I'd like to understand why this has been requested for publication as EXP? I may have missed this, but I didn't see any new protocol definitions. I do note it was chartered as an experimental extension, yet I see no explanation of why this is an experiment, nor how that experiment may in the future be declared as a success or failure. Whatever the reason, can this reason to be noted in the abstract and to be described in the introduction?

DISCUSS 2: Since this is targeting EXP, what is the nature of the EXP specification: is it for a limited duration? A limited use-case? A limited scope of deployment? i.e., what is the experiment and can this document define implicit or explicit success/failure criteria, and an outcome that can be used as the basis for a future recommendation to the IETF community?

DISCUSS 3: Section 7 is about a topic that I do not see explained. If this is important enough to include, please specify this. The informational reference to the ELP-probing mechanism details in [I-D.filyurin-lisp-elp-probing] seems insufficient and since this reference has expired (in 2018) as a non-WG I-D, can the whole section be removed?

[Ballot comment]
I'd strongly encourage changing the opening sentence of section 2, to insert the word “Experimental” before extension, "Informational" if the document were changed to target this.

Please consider the following:

- Please do expand the word LISP in the title
- Please expand LISP in the abstract.
- Please also define all abbreviations on first use, I expect this will hardly increase the word count much and can save reader pain.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Dino, Michael, Parantap, and Padma,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification.

Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the OPSDIR review. Unless I’m mistaken, there was no discussion on these issues.

Given the intended status, I didn't review the detailed proposed procedure but focused on the expected features.

# Is this document ready for IESG Review?

I failed to find follow-ups or updates to the IETF LC comments (directorate reviews are also part of the IETF LC comments).

I won’t reiterate here the comments made by Dhruv and which I think are worth to consider.

# Justification/Expectations for the intended Experimental status

Please add similar text as what was agreed for the LISP Geo spec where we raised this same issue. Thanks.

# Deployment Incentives

Although this is experimental, a discussion on deployment incentives for this flavor of LISP TE (which is distinct from the one discussed, e.g., in RFC7834) is needed.

Forcing some via-points (for some specific reasons) would require that domains that do not host LISP-capable routers to be upgraded to enable LISP for the sake of the service offered in this draft. What are the incentives for such domains to do so? What they get out of offering this capability?

I’m not mentioning issues related to adding an extra intermediate on the path with all the risks of interception, etc.

Section 4 lists some reasons to enable the proposed features, but no justification/discussion is actually provided. Please see below some comments about that part.

## Lack of control of underlying path

CURRENT:
  *  There may be a policy reason to avoid the ASes that make up the
      path between B and C.

xTRs do not have control of the underlying path. Assuming that an internal path is made available to endpoints, avoiding some portion of a forwarding path may not be possible unless we assume that for every AS in the forwarding path a LISP RTR is enabled. That assumption is against the promise of the initial LISP design (free lisp core).

## LISP-specific for handling internal path failures is not a viable approach

CURRENT:
  *  There may be a failure on the path between B and C which makes the
      path unreliable.

As failures are unpredictable, this assumes that the intended features to be efficient for this intended case must be enabled not only to react to the B-C leg failure but other similar failures of a path (let alone other alternative paths that may be selected by the underlying routing). That’s not a viable approach.

Also, other traffic than the LISP-encapsulated one will be impacted by such failures if they occur. A more generic protection mechanism to detect/absorb the failure is more appropriate than LISP-specific.

## Why another mechanism for service chaining is needed?

CURRENT:
  *  There may be a chain of services performed at RTRs X and Y
      regardless if the path from ITR to ETR is through B and C.

There are few service chaining approaches already standardized by the IETF. A discussion why these mechanisms are not sufficient here is needed.

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Dino, Michael, Parantap, and Padma,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification.

Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the OPSDIR review. Unless I’m mistaken, there was no discussion on these issues.

Given the intended status, I won’t review the detailed procedure proposed here but will focus on the expected features.

# Is this document ready for IESG Review?

I failed to find follow-ups or updates to the IETF LC comments (directorate reviews are also part of the IETF LC comments).

I won’t reiterate here the comments made by Dhruv and which I think are worth to consider.

# Justification/Expectations for the intended Experimental status

Please add similar text as what was agreed for the LISP Geo spec where we raised this same issue. Thanks.

# Deployment Incentives

Although this is experimental, a discussion on deployment incentives for this flavor of LISP TE (which is distinct from the one discussed, e.g., in RFC7834) is needed.

Forcing some via-points (for some specific reasons) would require that domains that are not host LISP-capable routers to be upgraded to enable LISP for the sake of the service offered in this draft? What are the incentives for such domain to do so?

I’m not mentioning issues related to adding an extra intermediate on the path with all the risk of interception, etc.

Section 4 lists some reasons to enable the proposed features, but no justification/discussion is actually provided. Please see below some comments about that part.

## Lack of control of underlying path

CURRENT:
  *  There may be a policy reason to avoid the ASes that make up the
      path between B and C.

xTR does not have control of the underlying path. Assuming that an internal path is made available to endpoints, avoiding some portion of a forwarding path may not be possible unless we assume that for every AS in the forwarding path a LISP RTR is enabled. That assumption is against the promise of initial LISP design.

## LISP specific for internal path failures is not a viable approach

CURRENT:
  *  There may be a failure on the path between B and C which makes the
      path unreliable.

As failures are unpredictable, this assumes that the intended features to be efficient for this intended case must be enabled not only to react to the B-C leg failure but other similar failures of the path. That’s not a viable approach.

Also, other traffic that LISP-encapsulated one will be impacted. A more generic protection mechanism to detect/absorb the failure is more appropriate than LISP-specific.

## Why another mechanism for service chaining is needed?

CURRENT:
  *  There may be a chain of services performed at RTRs X and Y
      regardless if the path from ITR to ETR is through B and C.

There are few service chaining approaches already standardized by the IETF. A discussion why these mechanisms are not sufficient here is needed.

Cheers,
Med

Request for IETF Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Peter Yee. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-te-21, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-05-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-lisp-te@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, padma.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (LISP Traffic Engineering) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG
(lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP Traffic Engineering'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-05-28. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes how LISP re-encapsulating tunnels can be used
  for Traffic Engineering purposes.  The mechanisms described in this
  document require no LISP protocol changes but do introduce a new
  locator (RLOC) encoding.  The Traffic Engineering features provided
  by these LISP mechanisms can span intra-domain, inter-domain, or a
  combination of both.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-te/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, and the current template for the shepherd write-up document

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 document has been around for a few years (call for WG adoption was in 2017) and is mature. The document was supported by 14 votes (appropriate for the WG) and there were no objections.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

One particular concern to add clarification in the document for procedure at each tunnel hop in section 5 when the S bit is set. It was openly debated on the mailing list and resolved in the current version of the document.

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 discontent is recorded on the mailing list or in WG meeting on the latest version.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

There are existing implementations though not recorded in the document.

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.

The document is relevant with in LISP domain and does not have reviews from other
WGs. External reviews have not been requested nor recorded.

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.

The above-mentioned document reviews are not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

There is no Yang module in the document

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.

There are no formal languages used in the doc

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, the document is ready to be handed off. It is clearly written, the author addressed all pending comments from the shepherd review. This document describes an important and useful feature for LISP protocol  deployment.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

The document describes an extension to the LISP protocol and how it should be processed and does not have such areas requiring 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?

The authors requested the document to be in the Experimental stream and is appropriate for the document for a new feature. Yes, all the Datatracker 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? 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.

An IPR disclosure call was sent on the wg list and there were no IPR disclosure. All authors responded and they are not aware of IPR as well

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.

The document has 3 authors and shown their willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits 2.17.1

draft-ietf-lisp-te-20.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according
    to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe
    there should be IPv6 examples, too?


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (4 November 2024) is 31 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

The idnits had no errors

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? 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).

The document does not request any IANA registry.

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 

As required by RFC 4858, and the current template for the shepherd write-up document

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 document has been around for a few years (call for WG adoption was in 2017) and is mature. The document was supported by 14 votes (appropriate for the WG) and there were no objections.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

One particular concern to add clarification in the document for procedure at each tunnel hop in section 5 when the S bit is set. It was openly debated on the mailing list and resolved in the current version of the document.

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 discontent is recorded on the mailing list or in WG meeting on the latest version.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

There are existing implementations though not recorded in the document.

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.

The document is relevant with in LISP domain and does not have reviews from other
WGs. External reviews have not been requested nor recorded.

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.

The above-mentioned document reviews are not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

There is no Yang module in the document

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.

There are no formal languages used in the doc

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, the document is ready to be handed off. It is clearly written, the author addressed all pending comments from the shepherd review. This document describes an important and useful feature for LISP protocol  deployment.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

The document describes an extension to the LISP protocol and how it should be processed and does not have such areas requiring 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?

The authors requested the document to be in the Experimental stream and is appropriate for the document for a new feature. Yes, all the Datatracker 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? 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.

An IPR disclosure call was sent on the wg list and there were no IPR disclosure. All authors responded and they are not aware of IPR as well

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.

The document has 3 authors and shown their willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits 2.17.1

draft-ietf-lisp-te-20.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according
    to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe
    there should be IPv6 examples, too?


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (4 November 2024) is 31 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

The idnits had no errors

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? 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).

The document does not request any IANA registry.

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 

As required by RFC 4858, and the current template for the shepherd write-up document

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 document has been around for a few years (call for WG adoption was in 2017) and is mature. The document was supported by 14 votes (appropriate for the WG) and there were no objections.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

One particular concern to add clarification in the document for procedure at each tunnel hop in section 5 when the S bit is set. It was openly debated on the mailing list and resolved in the current version of the document.

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 discontent is recorded on the mailing list or in WG meeting on the latest version.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

There are existing implementations though not recorded in the document.

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.

The document is relevant with in LISP domain and does not have reviews from other
WGs. External reviews have not been requested nor recorded.

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.

The above-mentioned document reviews are not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

There is no Yang module in the document

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.

There are no formal languages used in the doc

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, the document is ready to be handed off. It is clearly written, the author addressed all pending comments from the shepherd review. This document describes an important and useful feature for LISP protocol  deployment.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

The document describes an extension to the LISP protocol and how it should be processed and does not have such areas requiring 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?

The authors requested the document to be in the Experimental stream and is appropriate for the document for a new feature. Yes, all the Datatracker 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? 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.

Not yet but will be done in WG LC.

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.

The document has 3 authors and shown their willingness to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits 2.17.1

draft-ietf-lisp-te-20.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according
    to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe
    there should be IPv6 examples, too?


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (4 November 2024) is 31 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

The idnits had no errors

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? 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).

The document does not request any IANA registry.

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