Skip to main content

Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody
# 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 …
# 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?

It represents a strong concurrence of a few with no objections from others.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

WG debated the use of a fixed value for association ID (and innovative use of Extended Association ID) but converged on the current solution to handle any possibility of a race condition in case of multiple PCE.

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? 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)?

The Implementation Status section notes that there are 2 known implementations at the least.

## 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.

No

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.

No

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]?

No

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, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document has been reviewed by the chair. The document is clear and ready
to be shipped.

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])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard
This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus the standards track makes sense.
All attributes in Datatracker are set 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.

There are no IPRs. Poll was conducted during adoption and WGLC.

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

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.)

None

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.

None

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?

None

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.

This document updates RFC 8231, it is captured in the metadata and abstract.

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 with the document's body and has been reviewed.
Some coordination is needed with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy as both documents are trying to create the same registry. Whichever document gets to the IESG approval first keeps the registry and the other would need to update the IANA section. 


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.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17.html#section-6.5
The guidance is the same as RFC 9256.

[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/

2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-07-05
17 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody
# 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 …
# 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?

It represents a strong concurrence of a few with no objections from others.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

WG debated the use of a fixed value for association ID (and innovative use of Extended Association ID) but converged on the current solution to handle any possibility of a race condition in case of multiple PCE.

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? 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)?

The Implementation Status section notes that there are 2 known implementations at the least.

## 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.

No

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.

No

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]?

No

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, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document has been reviewed by the chair. The document is clear and ready
to be shipped.

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])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard
This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus the standards track makes sense.
All attributes in Datatracker are set 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.

There are no IPRs. Poll was conducted during adoption and WGLC.

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

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.)

None

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.

None

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?

None

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.

This document updates RFC 8231, it is captured in the metadata and abstract.

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 with the document's body and has been reviewed.
Some coordination is needed with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy as both documents are trying to create the same registry. Whichever document gets to the IESG approval first keeps the registry and the other would need to update the IANA section. 


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.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17.html#section-6.5
The guidance is the same as RFC 9256.

[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/

2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody
# 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 …
# 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?

It represents a strong concurrence of a few with no objections from others.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

WG debated the use of a fixed value for association ID (and innovative use of Extended Association ID) but converged on the current solution to handle any possibility of a race condition in case of multiple PCE.

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? 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)?

The Implementation Status section notes that there are 2 known implementations at the least.

## 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.

No

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.

No

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]?

No

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, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document has been reviewed by the chair. The document is clear and ready
to be shipped.

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])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard
This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus the standards track makes sense.
All attributes in Datatracker are set 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.

There are no IPRs. Poll was conducted during adoption and WGLC.

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

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.)

None

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.

None

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?

None

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.

None

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 with the document's body and has been reviewed.
Some coordination is needed with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy as both documents are trying to create the same registry. Whichever document gets to the IESG approval first keeps the registry and the other would need to update the IANA section. 


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.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17.html#section-6.5
The guidance is the same as RFC 9256.

[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/

2024-07-05
17 Dhruv Dhody
# 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 …
# 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?

It represents a strong concurrence of a few with no objections from others.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

WG debated the use of a fixed value for association ID (and instead innovative use of Extended Association ID) but converged on this solution to handle any possibility of a race condition in case of multiple PCE.

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? 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)?

The Implementation Status section notes that there are 2 known implementations at the least.

## 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.

No

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.

No

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]?

No

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, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document has been reviewed by the chair. The document is clear and ready
to be shipped.

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])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard
This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus the standards track makes sense.
All attributes in Datatracker are set 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.

There are no IPRs. Poll was conducted during adoption and WGLC.

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

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.)

None

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.

None

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?

None

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.

None

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 with the document's body and has been reviewed.
Some coordination is needed with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy as both documents are trying to create the same registry. Whichever document gets to the IESG approval first keeps the registry and the other would need to update the IANA section. 


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.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17.html#section-6.5
The guidance is the same as RFC 9256.

[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/

2024-06-25
17 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17.txt
2024-06-25
17 (System) New version approved
2024-06-24
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2024-06-24
17 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2024-05-28
16 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-16.txt
2024-05-28
16 (System) New version approved
2024-05-28
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2024-05-28
16 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2024-03-17
15 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-15.txt
2024-03-17
15 (System) New version approved
2024-03-17
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2024-03-17
15 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2024-02-09
14 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14.txt
2024-02-09
14 Mike Koldychev New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mike Koldychev)
2024-02-09
14 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2024-01-26
13 Ines Robles Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list.
2024-01-22
13 Dhruv Dhody IPR Poll - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Cj_TZ0Dp5eCuGvLU3YkB-c6frN8/
2024-01-22
13 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2024-01-16
13 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-13.txt
2024-01-16
13 Mike Koldychev New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mike Koldychev)
2024-01-16
13 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2024-01-09
12 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles
2024-01-09
12 Dhruv Dhody Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2024-01-08
12 Dhruv Dhody Notification list changed to dd@dhruvdhody.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-01-08
12 Dhruv Dhody Document shepherd changed to Dhruv Dhody
2024-01-08
12 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-07-24
12 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.txt
2023-07-24
12 (System) New version approved
2023-07-24
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2023-07-24
12 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2023-07-14
11 Dhruv Dhody Added to session: IETF-117: pce  Mon-2230
2023-06-20
11 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11.txt
2023-06-20
11 (System) New version approved
2023-06-20
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2023-06-20
11 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2023-04-21
10 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-10.txt
2023-04-21
10 (System) New version approved
2023-04-21
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2023-04-21
10 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2023-03-19
09 Dhruv Dhody Added to session: IETF-116: pce  Mon-0630
2023-03-07
09 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-09.txt
2023-03-07
09 (System) New version approved
2023-03-07
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2023-03-07
09 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2022-10-24
08 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-08.txt
2022-10-24
08 (System) New version approved
2022-10-24
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2022-10-24
08 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2022-10-23
07 (System) Document has expired
2022-04-21
07 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-07.txt
2022-04-21
07 Mike Koldychev New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mike Koldychev)
2022-04-21
07 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2021-11-05
06 Dhruv Dhody Added to session: IETF-112: pce  Wed-1430
2021-10-22
06 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.txt
2021-10-22
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mike Koldychev)
2021-10-22
06 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2021-05-23
05 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-05.txt
2021-05-23
05 (System) New version approved
2021-05-23
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2021-05-23
05 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2021-03-08
04 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-04.txt
2021-03-08
04 (System) New version approved
2021-03-08
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2021-03-08
04 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2021-03-08
03 Dhruv Dhody Added to session: IETF-110: pce  Wed-1300
2021-02-22
03 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-03.txt
2021-02-22
03 (System) New version approved
2021-02-22
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2021-02-22
03 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2021-01-22
02 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-02.txt
2021-01-22
02 (System) New version approved
2021-01-22
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Colby Barth , Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Shuping Peng , Siva Sivabalan
2021-01-22
02 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2020-10-27
01 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01.txt
2020-10-27
01 (System) New version approved
2020-10-27
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Mike Koldychev , Colby Barth , Siva Sivabalan , Shuping Peng
2020-10-27
01 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision
2020-06-24
00 Dhruv Dhody This document now replaces draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp instead of None
2020-06-24
00 Mike Koldychev New version available: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-00.txt
2020-06-24
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-06-24
00 Mike Koldychev Set submitter to "Mike Koldychev ", replaces to draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org
2020-06-24
00 Mike Koldychev Uploaded new revision