(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
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
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.
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.
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?
(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.
(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.
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
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).
There have been three polls for knowledge of IPR with all authors
(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
(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
Stefano Previdi - Main document editor for IS-IS segment routing
and active participant in all discussions and design
Clarence Filsfils - Segment routing design team lead and orgainization
Hannes Gredler - Member of OSPFv2 segment routing design team,
author or merged draft, and representative of
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.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.