Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Write-up for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14

    (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

Proposed Standard. Proposed Standard/Standards Track is the proper type of RFC
b/c it is defining the required behavior to allow for interoperability between
multiple implementations of the documented mechanism. Standards Track is
indicated on the title page.

    (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:

    Technical Summary:

    Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction
    of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are
    deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This draft describes the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing
over an IPv6 data plane.

    Working Group Summary:

    Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
    there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the
    consensus was particularly rough?

There were some vigorous discussions with regards to the extensions (and the
underlying technology being supported by the extensions), but nothing
particularly rough in the resulting consensus on the extensions themselves.

    Document Quality:

    Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
    number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are
    there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough
    review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that
    the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG
    Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In
    the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are multiple implementations of this work deployed.

Some implementation status is given in the document which will be removed prior
to publication.


    Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: Christian Hopps
AD: Alvaro Retana

    (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

The shepherd has reviewed the latest versions of this document.

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

No concerns based on the latest review.

    (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

No broader review is required.

    (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 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?


    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
        summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

IPR disclosure has been filed, no WG discussion.

    (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 is solid support for this document.

    (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.)

The base document that this document supports was appealed, and that appeal was
declined. The shepherd is not aware of any threat to appeal this IGP extension
document though.

    (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

One over-long line.

    (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?

See (15).

    (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
         so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
         Last Call procedure.

There are 2 normative references to WIP, I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam (in IETF
Last Call reviews) and I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo, which has cleared WGLC, and work
is progressing.

    (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 RFC

The IANA section seems OK. The registries being created do not include any
specific guidance for the designated experts (other than RFC7370); however, they
do refer to the relevant sections to which the registries relate. All protocol
extensions are correctly associated with reservations in IANA registries and
have been clearly identified.

    (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.

The following IANA registries are being created with Expert Review indicated:

- "sub-sub-TLVs of the SRv6 Capability sub-TLV"
- "sub-sub-TLVs for SRv6 End SID (5) (sub-TLV of TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236
   and 237) and SRv6 End.X SID (43)/SRv6 LAN End.X SID (44) (Sub-TLVs
   for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223)"
- "ISIS SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV Flags"
- "ISIS SRv6 Locator TLV Flags"
- "ISIS SRv6 End SID sub-TLV Flags"
- "ISIS SRv6 End.X SID and LAN End.X SID sub-TLVs Flags"

    (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,


    (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has 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 RFC8342?