## 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]:
The document includes a YANG module containing various MSD types in
iana-msd-types.yang that will be maintained in a registry by IANA. This module
currently includes MPLS and some SRv6 specific MSD types. It was discussed
whether to move the SRv6 types out of the module (or augmented in another
module/document). The WG converged on keeping all types in the same module.
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]: no known implementations so far.
## 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]: The SPRING WG was involved and they reviewed the document during WG LC.
The respective WGs were involved during the progress of the document
and during the 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.
[Ans]: Yes, MPLS review team members reviewed before adoption by the WG.
Further reviews by the RTGDIR members and all comments were addressed. The YANG
doctor was completed on 2023-12-19.
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]: The YANG model conforms to NMDA. The tools were run and no
errors/warnings reported.
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]: not applicable.
## 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]: this document defines a YANG data model that augments the IETF MPLS YANG
model to support MPLS Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) as defined in RFC 8476 and RFC
8491. The shepherd believes this is a useful and well written document that is
ready to be handed off to the AD.
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]: The RTGDIR was engaged to perform early review. The YANG doctors have
also reviewed the document.
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]: Proposed Standard.
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]: A first IPR poll was done before adoption of the document. A second IPR
poll was done before WGLC -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/?q=IPR%20poll%20for%20draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang
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]: Yes.
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]: No nits reported.
idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021)
/a/www/www6s/staging/draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-05.txt:
Showing Errors (**), Flaws (~~), Warnings (==), and Comments (--).
Errors MUST be fixed before draft submission. Flaws SHOULD be fixed before
draft submission.
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Running in submission checking mode -- *not* checking nits according to
https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No nits found.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
[Ans]: None identified.
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]: None.
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]: 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?
[Ans]: 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.
[Ans]: 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][11]).
[Ans]: the IANA section registers two URIs in the IETF XML registry for each
module defined in this document:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-msd-types
Registrant Contact: IANA.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mpls-msd
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
The IANA section also registers the two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names
registry.
name: iana-msd-types
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-msd-types
prefix: iana-msd-types
reference: RFC XXXX
name: ietf-mpls-msd
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mpls-msd
prefix: mpls-msd
reference: RFC XXXX
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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/