Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability

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 gone through 2 WGLCs:
- 1st concluded in May 2020
- 2nd concluded in Nov 2024 (the current one)

The document and its first WGLC had good participation from the WG. However
the second one was much less. Taken together the document does represent broad 
agreement in the WG.

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

No.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This is an informational draft the implementations exist for the protocol
specification that is documented in draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf

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.

Yes. Since this is related to BGP extension, the document has been cross-posted
to the IDR WG for reviews during the 2nd WGLC.


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.

not applicable

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?

not applicable - note that the corresponding YANG module is being worked on in
a separate document by the WG

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.

Has been run clean through idnits; others don't apply

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

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?

RTGDIR and OPSDIR reviews have happened

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?

Informational - this is reflected in the datatracker.

Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on simplified layer 3
routing.  Furthermore, requirements for operational simplicity have led many of
these MSDCs to converge on BGP as their single routing protocol for both their
fabric routing and their Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing.  This draft
describes how such infrastructure can apply BGP-SPF specification
(draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf). This draft is Informational and
discusses the usage and applicability of Link State Vector Routing (LSVR)
extensions in data center networks utilizing CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies.  The
document is intended to provide a simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR
extensions.


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.

No IPR has been declared on this document.

Yes - all authors have responded to the previous and the latest IPR poll
during the WGLC.

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.

Yes and not applicable

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.)

None

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

None

16) List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

None

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.

None

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?

None

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).

No IANA considerations apply

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.

No IANA considerations apply

Back