This shepherd write-up is per RFC 4858 and based on the template published
on the IESG site. This version is dated 4 July 2022.
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 multiple WGLCs:
- 1st in Oct 2019
- 2nd in Feb 2023
- 3rd in Oct 2024 (the current one)
Over these WGLCs while the participation has progressively reduced, taken all
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. The document has undergone multiple revisions to iron out comments
including some that had more than one way of getting addressed.
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)?
Implementations of an earlier version of the draft have been reported in a
separate individual document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-psarkar-lsvr-bgp-spf-impl/
The latest version of the document still holds the same core protocol
specification as implemented. There have been some aspects removed (which were
not implemented) and many clarifications.
The implementers in the WG have shared that their implementations would be
updated to reflect the latest specification upon publication as RFC.
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 a BGP extension, the document has been cross-posted to the
IDR WG for reviews during the WGLCs.
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?
Proposed Standard - this is reflected in the datatracker.
The WG was explicitly polled on this during the most recent WGLC and there was
significant support for publication as Proposed Standard and there was no
opposition. There exist implementations as well.
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. Most contributors have also responded to the latest IPR poll.
There are a couple of contributors listed (Abhay & Venu) that do not seem to
be active during the recent years but they had responded to IPR polls at
previous WGLCs.
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).
The allocation scheme is Expert Review for the Node SPF Status but IETF Review
for the Link and Prefix SPF Status as per authors choice. Other things are in
order.
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.
Confirmed that this is in order.