Shepherd writeup
rfc8476-25

(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 specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Router 
      Information (RI) TLV to specify the MPLS Maximum Segment Depth (MSD)
      for an OSPFv2/OSPFv3 router. Additionally, extensions are specified
      in OSPFv2 Prefix/Link attributes LSA and the OSPFv3 Extended-Router-LSA 
      to advertise the MSD for an OSPFv2/OSPFv3 link. The specification
      supports multiple types of MSD, as well as, an IANA registry for
      the types. The initial and only type specified is the Label 
      Imposition MSD, i.e., the maximum number of labels that can be 
      imposed for a link or router (minimum of all links). 

Working Group Summary:
    
       Once the precise defintion of MSD was agreed upon at the Chicago
       IETF, the draft has been relatively stable and the changes have
       been mainly procedural (i.e., the designation of a common MSD
       type IANA registry) or editorial (e.g., handling multiple
       MSD TLVs). 

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for 1 1/2 years and has had
      several good reviews. The authors have been very responsive to 
      comments and I believe the document is ready for publication. 

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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. Additionally, 
     the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency 
     with other OSPF RFCs. The document shepherd fully believes that the
     document is ready for publication.


(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.

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd

      No concerns have been voiced. IPR declaration is common for LSR
      drafts.

(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. 

(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. Publication for "IS-IS MSD" will be requested concurrently.

(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 IANA considerations section is clear and early allocatios have
     been made for the requeted code points. 

(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.

     Not applicable. The new MSD Type registry is covered by the IS-IS
     MSD draft.

(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