# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## 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?
-> During WG adoption[S1], there was broad agreement in the WG. A similar
consensus was reached during the WGLC[S2] with a similar volume of individuals
from different company origins. In general, the PCE WG tends to have a handful
of engagements and the responses were proportional to past documents indicating
general broad agreement. Questions, comments and suggestions were handled by
the authors in consensus with the WG.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
-> The document did not introduce any controversial topics or discussions.
Discussions were generally in the form of document scoping and grammatical
definitions such as those found in [S3] and [S4]
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.)
-> There has been not appeal threat or any discontent amongst WG members.
Comments and questions were addressed by the authors.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
-> PCE WG documents require an implementation status section on its adopted
documents. At the time of shepherd writeup the -05 version of the draft section
6 - implementation status indicates: "At the time of publication of this
version, there are no known implementations. Juniper Networks has plans to
implement the extensions defined in this document." [S5]
## 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.
-> The document introduces a small extension to PCEP to allow encoding a color
value in any PCEP tunnel, for the purpose of traffic steering via tunnel color
mapping. This technical definition and use of the term color is already
inherited in another PCE WG document [S6], and this document opens its use in
other tunnels with different path setup types. While the technology
interactions touch upon those covered by IDR and TEAS WG, the document would
likely not benefit from their review as the technology use in PCEP and tunnels
in PCEP is already well understood and confirmed within PCEP.
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.
-> Not applicable
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]?
-> Not applicable
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.
-> Not applicable
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
-> Yes, it is my opinion the document is needed as there are scenarios where it
is useful to apply the concept of color steering to 'classical' LSP Tunnels
which are not SR Policies, such as RSVP-TE LSPs. The document is clearly
written on how and where to encode the color attribute as well as why. It is
ready to be handed off to the AD.
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?
-> No identified issues.
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])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
-> The publication is requesting Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as it
defines extensions to the PCE protocol object encoding with well-understood use
cases and design considerations. Yes, the datatracker state reflects this
correctly.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.
-> Yes, IPR requests were issued pre-adoption[S7] and during WGLC[S8]. An
author of the document has also come forward with an IPR publication[S9][S10].
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
-> Yes. The authors and contributors list has remained consistent through the
versions of the document. The original draft contained 6 authors, but the
editors have correctly reduced the author list to 5.
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.)
-> There is currently no I-D nits in the document. Evaluating the document as
per [15] nits have not been found. The abstract does contain a word count of 41
which is below the guidelines, however, the shepherd believes the abstract
concisely and accurately captures the function of the document.
-> Note, at the time of writing Shepherd writeup IANA indicates the early
allocated codepoints expire 2024-10-30 however, RTG AD has already approved
renewal and IANA registry pending refresh.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
-> The normative and informative references are appropriate.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
-> not applicable, all references are RFCs
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, all normative references are stable RFCs
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? 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? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
-> no, the document is in isolation with nothing depending on it and does not
update any existing RFCs
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]).
-> Early allocations have been made including one which is now marked
deprecated(LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV) following discussion with authors, chairs, AD,
and IANA for best way to proceed with removal of a no longer requested code
point, and the current version of the document (-06) correctly specifies this
deprecation as directed by the chairs. -> The document does indicate new TBD
codepoints which have not yet been allocated. However, no new registries are
used.
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.
-> there are no new registries, and the existing registries extended upon do
not request expert review.
[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
[S1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LPXPNmImPIMMnSg9PScRSmY4jnc/
[S2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QDetx1Sn3LftKjcvSIRjWop82UI/
[S3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TlZatUYlynikhwioOgogzdYW4KA/
[S4]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/r7VCoYKfd2fy5l8dF999Spej04U/
[S5]:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-05#section-6
[S6]:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26
[S7]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TVCeFJk5aptqb0qaTPB2UMpi-C8/
[S8]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/MxAe9jG9nTnrBkKNaUCa9i18yig/
[S9]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/j9-hjy9MWfdRqH4Qfy9dwpfFVCY/
[S10]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5859/