# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
## 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?
[Ans]: The WG consensus represents broad agreement.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
[Ans]: This document had undergone three WGLCs.
[1] the first WG LC (see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_5qlFoOQWXVvuHfai46QIPSos0g/)
failed due to:
- Early on the start of the LC, it was pointed that there are outstanding
comments yet to be addressed. - There has been further discussions on the
document (still undergoing) and we expect further updates to the document
to resolve them.
[2] the second WG LC (see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/-sggY6AFe6zHc9umxymRrJYGnFI/)
failed due to:
- Concerns with regards to “Standards Track” intended status of the
document, mainly due to the lack of implementation experience and
interoperability of the data plane change - A renewed discussion about ISD
and PSD and the extent of impact of this on the proposed MNA header
encoding solution
[3] the third WG LC (see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/McFdOBfRPafCrJm0IMxnu4kbUHY/)
succeeded.
- Some comments were raised and were actively followed up by the authors.
- A renewed discussion on presence of multiple SPLs in the same MPLS header
was raised. This has kickstarted a new ID and is tracked by this thread
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/V3c0bgrs8Q10BM5tsZ6bGLmKKBU/
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.)
[Ans]: 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
[Ans]: The document includes an implementation section in Section 12. There is
one reported implementation of the solution.
## 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.
[Ans]: This document defines an MPLS header encapsulation for MNA technology.
The application of MNA technology for specific uscases is documented in RFC9791.
These application range from iOAM, DETNET, network-slicing, and others. The
PALS, DETNET, IPPM, WGs were kept in the loop early during the initial MNA
design discussions.
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.
[Ans]: No such formal language.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
[Ans]: No YANG module.
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.
[Ans]: No formal language.
## 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?
[Ans]: Yes.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
[Ans]: An early review from the RTG-Dir was requested and completed
satisfactorily.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
[Ans]: The intended RFC status is Standards Track and document reflects it in
the Datatracker.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.
[Ans]: Authors confirmed their knowledge of no other than the 5 IPRs known
against the document:
at the time of the WG last call.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
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.
[Ans]: There are five co-authors on the front page. By responding to the IPR
poll, they
have implicitly confirmed their willingness to be listed as co-authors.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
[Ans]: IDnits reports:
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9613
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 9789
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
--> The document shepherd will work with authors to address those in the next
revision. --> No other issues were spotted by the shepherd.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
[Ans]:The references appear to be correct.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
[Ans]: All references are to IETF material.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
[Ans]: 2 downrefs documents. Shepherd will work with authors.
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?
[Ans]: 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.
[Ans]: No status changes made.
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][11]).
[Ans]: The document includes an IANA section. It:
1. requests a value (TBA) for the MNA bSPL label from the "Base Special-Purpose
MPLS Label Values" registry. 2. requests that IANA creates a new category
called "MPLS Network Actions Parameters" within the "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture (MPLS)" category 3. requests that IANA creates a new
registry with the name "Network Action Flags Without Ancillary Data" within the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" category. 4. requests that
IANA creates a new registry with the name "Network Action Opcodes".
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.
[Ans]: None.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/