Skip to main content

RIFT Key/Value Structure and Registry

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
04 Yuehua Wei
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual 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. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?
This document is only considered in Routing In Fat Trees (rift) WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

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.)

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
No. This document defines various Key-Types and proposes a method to structure corresponding values. The document is the necessary supplement to rift protocol.

## 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. This document is the necessary supplement to rift protocol. The rift protocol is defined within this working group.

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.
This document does not meet any required MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

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]?
This document doesn't contain a YANG module.

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.
None required.

## 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?

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
I have no concerns with this document based on the Routing Area's list.

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?
This draft is intended to move forward as an Internet Standard and is correctly
documented as such.

With multiple implementations of the protocol it describes (RIFT) it is the
correct type of publication.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? 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.

No IPRs were disclosed for this document and all authors have stated this
during last call. Please refer to:

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.
There are only two co-authors totally in this draft.

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][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

[RIFT-AUTO-EVPN] should be listed as an informative reference. Fixed already.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

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. The main RIFT specification is currently progressing through AD review.

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.

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 main RIFT spec is the document that requests the new top-level “RIFT” category on the IANA registry site. Since it is still progressing through AD review, it has not been created yet. The registries requested in this draft also fit under that new top-level category.

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.


04 Jordan Head New version available: draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04.txt
04 (System) New version approved
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jordan Head , Tony Przygienda
04 Jordan Head Uploaded new revision
03 Jordan Head New version available: draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-03.txt
03 Jordan Head New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jordan Head)
03 Jordan Head Uploaded new revision
02 Jordan Head New version available: draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-02.txt
02 Jordan Head New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jordan Head)
02 Jordan Head Uploaded new revision
01 Jordan Head New version available: draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-01.txt
01 Jordan Head New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jordan Head)
01 Jordan Head Uploaded new revision
00 Zhaohui Zhang Notification list changed to because the document shepherd was set
00 Zhaohui Zhang Document shepherd changed to Yuehua Wei
00 Zhaohui Zhang IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
00 (System) Document has expired
00 Zhaohui Zhang This document now replaces draft-head-rift-kv-registry instead of None
00 Jordan Head New version available: draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-00.txt
00 (System) WG -00 approved
00 Jordan Head Set submitter to "Jordan Head ", replaces to draft-head-rift-kv-registry and sent approval email to group chairs:
00 Jordan Head Uploaded new revision