As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
- Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?
- It's a protcol extension.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
- Yes

(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:

  In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and service
  independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
  Identifier (BSID).  It is possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-
  signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switch Path or an SR Traffic
  Engineering path.  The BSID can be used by an upstream node for
  steering traffic into the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies.
  This document specifies the binding value as an MPLS label or Segment
  Identifier.  It further specifies an approach for reporting binding
  label/SID by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to the Path Computation
  Element (PCE) to support PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
- No

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
- Yes, 2 implementations are mentioned in the I-D.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
- There are 4 different vendors among the authors.

Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?
- Adrian Farrel did a careful review of the document and Olivier Dugeon suggested to add a flag which resulted in a more robust and consistent extension.

If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
- N/a

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
- Julien Meuric

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
- John Scudder

(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.
- This document looks 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.
- N/a

(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.
- No

(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 behind this document, with several vendors involved, a few reviews and links with some work in 2 WGs (PCE & Spring). Early allocation was requested for some of the code points.

(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.
- Done

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
- N/a

(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?
- N/a

(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.
- N/a

(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 8126).
- Checked (some part of the IANA section already triggered an early code point allcoation).

(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.
- N/a

(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, YANG modules, etc.
- N/a

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?
- N/a

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cheng Li <chengli13@huawei.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>, Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>, Stefano Previdi <stefano@previdi.net>, pce-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi <stefano@previdi.net>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>, Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Cheng Li <chengli13@huawei.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>, Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, Cheng Li <chengli13@huawei.com>, Stefano Previdi <stefano@previdi.net>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, Cheng Li <chengli13@huawei.com>, Siva Sivabalan <msiva@cisco.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Stefano Previdi <stefano@previdi.net>, Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: pce-chairs@ietf.org, Cheng Li <chengli13@huawei.com>, Siva Sivabalan <msiva@cisco.com>, Stefano Previdi <stefano@previdi.net>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan <msiva@cisco.com>, Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Stefano Previdi <stefano@previdi.net>, Cheng Li <chengli13@huawei.com>