Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-20

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page
    header?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
    Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.
    Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for
    approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following
    sections:

Technical Summary:
     
     This document describes the OSPFv2 extensions for segment routing 
     including Prefix-SID, Adjacency-SID, and Binding-SID. The extensions
     are based on RFC 7770.   

Working Group Summary:
   
     The Working Group discussion has been dominated by the initial vendors
     that implemented the specification (Juniper, Cisco, and Nokia). We've
     gone through several iterations over the last two and half years. 

    The document has completed two separate IPR polls. It is in its second
    Working Group last call due to some additional protocol encodings and 
    clarifications on the handling of error situations. The second Working
    Group last call is preceding without questions or significant comments.

   The ERO and binding-SID extensions were removed due to AD comments
   and these changes were Working Group last called. 

      
Document Quality:

      The document has been implemented by a number of vendors (refer to 
      the implementation status section) and has been stable now for a few
      months. In fact, the only changes have been edits and clarifications
      based on WG last-call and chair review. 

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
    for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
    to the IESG.

     The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
     and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. 


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

      No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review
    that took place.

      No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
    the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
    uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
    whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
    discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
    advance the document, detail those concerns here.

      None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
    78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

     Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
    so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.

      Yes - there is an IPR disclosure on non-WG version and two more
      on the WG version of the document. The terms are such that 
      the patent will not be asserted unless the party asserts a patent
      against the holder (forget the term for this). 

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2233/
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2401/
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2808/

      There have been three polls for knowledge of IPR with all authors 
      responding. 


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
    being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

      There is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
     discontent?  If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
     document.  (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
     Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough;
     this check needs to be thorough.

      Nits are all resolved.  There are 7 comments from Idnits bug 
      none of them are indicative of issues in the draft. For example,
      IPv6 examples are suggested but OSPFv2 only supports IPv4.
  
      The document does have seven authors. All the authors have 
      played in active role in the development of the standard including
      periodic segment routing design team meetings.  All of the authors
      have responded promptly to IPR polls. At least three of the
      authors represented independent implementations. Here are their
      roles and responsibilities:

      Peter Psenak - Main document editor and OSPFv2 segment routing
                                encoding point-of-contact.
      Stefano Previdi - Main document editor for IS-IS segment routing 
                                 and active participant in all discussions and design 
                                 meetings. 
       Clarence Filsfils - Segment routing design team lead and orgainization 
                                        of discussions. 
        Hannes Gredler - Member of OSPFv2 segment routing design team, 
                                         author or merged draft, and representative of
                                         Juniper implementation. 
        Rob Shakir - Member of OSPFv2 segment routing design team. 
                                Representative of operator's perspective.
        Wim Henderick - Member of OSPFv2 segment routing design team. 
                                        Active participation in discussions and representative
                                        of Nokia's implementation. 
        Jeff Tantsura - Member of OSPFv2 segment routing design team. 
                                    Active participation in discussions and representative
                                    of Ericsson's implementation. 
        
        
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
     criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

      Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
     normative or informative?

      Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
     advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
     normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
  
      No. 

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
     If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director
     in the Last Call procedure.

      No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
     RFCs?  Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in
     the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
     not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point
     to the part of the document where the relationship of this document
     to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
     document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

      No.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the
     document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
     IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have
     been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries
     include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
     registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are
     defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been
     suggested (see RFC 5226).

     The Segment Routing extensions required allocation of a number of
     code points from the registries created for RFC 7770. These code
     points were pre-allocated through IANA early allocation as 
     described in RFC 7120.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
     allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
     useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

      None. 

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
     Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
     language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
 
      Not applicable.
Back