## 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?
-> Concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent
(update following interop tests)
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
-> No
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?
-> Yes
Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement?
-> Yes
Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
-> Cf. Section 6 of the document.
## 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.
-> Links with RSVP-TE (TEAS & MPLS WGs) and Segment Routing (Spring WG).
Reviews would be welcome.
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.
-> N/A
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 -> yes,
- clearly written -> yes,
- complete -> yes,
- correctly designed -> yes,
- 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?
-> N/A
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])?
-> Proposed Standard
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
-> It updates a PS protocol.
Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
-> Yes
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]?
-> Yes
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.
-> The authors were requested to respond about the IPR policy.
[https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LbOePvX814Apdrho3Al81Peb3yc/]
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such?
-> Yes
If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
-> 4 authors
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.)
-> Nits corrected after review.
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?
-> N/A
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.
-> No
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?
-> The document updates an RFC.
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?
-> Yes
If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
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]).
-> The IANA section is consistent.
Only a flag is required, and it was already assigned through the early allocation process.
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.
-> N/A
[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/