# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-08
## 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?
There is a broad agreement to adopt and progress this work within OPSAWG. Also,
this work benefited from cross-wg checks (see below). There was also a fair
support from implementers (see below).
The proposal has been demonstrated at the IETF#115 Hackathon. No issue was
reported.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy is to be reported for the draft. The authors were responsive in
dealing with the comments raised by reviewers. One aspect that required some
cycles is related to the IANA actions. For example, previous versions of the
specification requested the creation of new registries that are redundant with
existing IANA registries. That design was problematic. That issue and similar
ones were fixed in subsequent iterations of the draft after consulting with the
IANA.
The following main comments were raised by the DEs during the IETF Last Call:
* Whether "IPv6" has to appear in the IE names: It is true that SRH is for
IPv6, and one
would claim that having IPv6 included is redundant. However, including IPv6
in the the IE names as this is an explicit indication about the applicability
of an IE. FWIW, other registries insist on the V6 thing even for IPv6-only
registries (see for example all the options starting with “OPTION_V6” in
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml).
* Inconsistent naming when IPv6 is included in the name (e.g., as to whether
"IPv6" is in
the middle, at the end, ..): FWIW, there are no rules out there as there are
IPFIX IEs such as sourceIPv6Address, destinationIPv6PrefixLength,
flowLabelIPv6, ipv6ExtensionHeaders, icmpCodeIPv6, etc. However, the authors
made changes to some IEs to ensure "some" consistency: e.g.,
s/srhSectionIPv6/srhIPv6Section.
* srhSegmentIPv6BasicListseems to be a raw dump of srhSegmentIPv6BasicList. The
same comment
was also raised for srhIPv6Section. The authors explained that although they
prefer srhSegmentIPv6BasicList, there is lack of RFC6313 implementations,
hence these two IEs.
The following note is in the draft
"It is not expected that an exporter would support both
srhSegmentIPv6BasicList and srhSegmentIPv6ListSection at the same time."
Andrew Feren (DE) agreed with the authors, while Paul Aitken (DE) maintained
his objections.
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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Yes. At least, the following implementations were disclosed:
* open-source flow collector pmacct: [https://github.com/pmacct/pmacct]
* VPP: [https://github.com/insa-unyte/vpp-srh-onpath-telemetry]
* Huawei VRP
More information about these implementations are available at:
[draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-06.html#name-implementation-status].
## 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:
* Early versions of this specification were presented at OPSAWG and SPRING
(IETF#113) and 6man (IETF#114).
* The authors systematically sent notifications to SPRING/6MAN WGs when new
revisions were released (e.g.,
[https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/E7E8SEKuP2gjklFxljZR6WwwvLU/]),
including when a call for adoption was initiated in OPSAWG and then past
adoptions.
* The WGLC was also circulated in SPRING
([https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCslo9FALtLsuTTFr3ZhZStUqv8/])
and 6man
([https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/iHvRL9SwSY-gMEpLuM0uhZdnytM/]).
No follow-up was received in these lists, though.
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.
No formal review is required other than the review required to perform the IANA
actions (i.e., new IPFIX IE assignments).
Early IANA allocation as per
[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7120#section-2] considered by the
authors.
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]?
N/A.
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.
N/A.
## 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][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
The document was already socialized in 6man and spring.
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?
This document requests publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. That
is indicated on the header page. The intended status is justified
given that the document specifies new IPFIX IEs with a set of normative
behavior to ensure interoperability.
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.
Yes. An IPR poll was issued by Joe. All authors replied to that poll:
* Thomas Graf:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/QLID8Pvu_neDIRA-RUwosf5ynbQ/ *
Benoit Claise:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/EmjEkESHERsW8WN32cVI0MyUiwQ/ *
Pierre François:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/7wQJw5X9s5m1_LvqJTdNbR4QdH8/
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.
I guess so. At least, none of the listed authors complained.
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.)
None to report for -06.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
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][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
N/A.
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?
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.
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]).
See, e.g.,
https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%20Med.pdf
The Shepherd review of the document triggered discussions with IANA and updated
to the IANA considerations section to implement the proposed changes (see
[https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_NruNADG4FWAE5H4ErM0zIEVwCs/]).
All requested actions are clearly documented, with adequate pointers to the
target IANA registry.
The document requests the creation of a new sub-registry (IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment
Type). The initial content is provided.
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.
The new sub-registry "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Segment Type Subregistry".
Some instructions are provided to the Designated Experts. Even if this is
too brief, this is aligned with IPFIX practices.
[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/