Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr
"Post-Stack MPLS Network Action (MNA) Header Specification"
Document shepherd: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
= Document History
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 first WG last call attracted only 4 responses (2 from authors),
so the chairs held a second last call which had to be extended with a
prompt to the WG to pay attention. Finally there were enough responses
to be able to say that there is consensus for publication.
It may be said that there is not overwhelming enthusiasm in the WG for
this draft.
Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There were three points of note:
- The first arose from draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr and concerned how the
MNA Header should indicate whether post-stack data was in use or a
post-stack header was present. This debate almost derailed that
other draft, but the issues were resolved.
- The second issue concerned whether the same MNA Opcodes should be
used for actions that could be encoded either in-stack or post-
stack. The conclusion was to have a shared registry (defined in
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr, but updated with an additional column in
this document).
- The third topic of debate was whether there was any need for this
post-stack work at all. specific use cases that demanded the
mechanism are thin on the ground, however, the original
requirements work set out that post-stack should be made available,
and in the end it was agreed that this document should proceed to
make the tool available.
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 appeals promissed.
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 no implementations reported.
There are six I-Ds (one is a WG I-D) that make normative reference
to this document.
= Additional Reviews
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.
This is pure MPLS. No other WGs need be involved.
Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews needed.
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?
No YANG.
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.
No formal language.
= Document Shepherd Checks
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?
The shepherd's review (at revision -01) raised penty of issues and nits.
It took several subsequent revisions to address all of the points.
The document is now (after additional RTG-Dir reviews) ready for
publication.
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 has been checked against the list for the RTG Area.
Sadly, the document oes not contain an Operational Considerations
section, and I believe a check against the OPS Area list might find
it deficient. Unfortunately, two requests for OPS-Dir reviews failed
to deliver.
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?
Publication is requested on the Standards Track.
This is indicated:
- in the document header
- in the Datatracker
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 poll was condicted before WG last call. See the thread at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/5ISGADSRJtf50bcep6CBq5rgE98/
All authors and the one conributor responded.
There are two IPR disclosures against the document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr
Both disclosures were notified to the mailing list, and no discussion
ensued.
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.
There are just 5 front-page authors.
All authors and the contributor have acknowledged their roles by dint
of replying to the IPR poll. None objected.
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 runs cleanly on the latest revision.
No other nits noticed.
Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
The balance of normative and informative references looks right.
List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references emanate from the IETF.
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 Downrefs.
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?
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr is a normative reference, but it is ahead of
this document in the processing cycle and so will not be a problem.
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 status changes.
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 shepherd's review led to significant changes in the IANA
considerations. This appears to be correct now, although it is
dependent on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr.
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 new registries.