# Document Shepherd Writeup
*This version is dated 8 July 2022.*
## 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?
The WG consensus represents the strong concurrence among all active
participants of the SFC WG.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There were no controversial points brought up in the course of discussing this
document by the SFC WG.
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, no one objected to adopting the draft by the WG (WG AP), nor to the
decision to publish it (WG LC).
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)?
Although no implementations have been reported, several proponents indicated
considerations to support IOAM in NSH.
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
Notifying the IPPM WG seems like a reasonable step.
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.
None of the abovementioned formal reviews is required to progress this document.
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]?
The document doesn't include the 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?
The document is clearly written, easy to read, and based on pragmatic
engineering practices.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
I believe that all the listed common issues are reasonably addressed in the
latest version of the document.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The intended publication is as Proposed Standard. That is the proper type of
RFC as the document defines encapsulation that affects the NSH data plane.
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
emails.
The IPR disclosure was properly filed https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3527/.
All authors responded to the IPR inquiry stating that they are not aware of any
IPR other than already disclosed.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/?gbt=1&index=dPQBjkIrquNrUiBTN9lnmUTrXew.
The same statement was made by the following contributors: Vengada Prasad
Govindan, Hannes Gredler, John Leddy, Stephen Youell, Tal Mizrahi, Carlos
Pignataro, and David Mozes. Two contributors have not responded: Petr Lapukhov
and Remy Chang. Note that the email for Remy Chang is missing.
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
All Authors and Contributors agreed to be listed accordingly.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
guidelines document.
Reference to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data must be updated to RFC 9197.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
All references are used appropriately.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are in the open access.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
No downrefs in the document.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet in the "Submitted to IESG for Publication" state.
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.
The publication of this document would not change the status of any existing
RFC.
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][12]).
All actions requested in the IAN Considerations section of this document are
clearly explained and properly attributed to existing IANA registries.
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.
No new IANA registries are requested.
[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/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html