As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(1) The document is on the Proposed Standard track that is the appropriate
direction for the document.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Technical Summary:
The document adds the integrity protection mechanism directly to the Network
Service Header (NSH) used for Service Function Chaining (SFC). Also, the
document describes how to encrypt sensitive metadata that is carried in the
NSH.
Working Group Summary:
The work on the draft was started as a follow-up to the discussion during the
SFC WG meeting at IETF-104:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-sfc-sfc-chair-slides-01
(slide 7). The draft was first submitted in October 2019, has been reviewed by
a reasonable number of people in the SFC working group, which is reflected in
the Acknowledgment section. Publication of the draft received a fair number of
supporters and no objections from the working group. Two early SecDir reviews
were requested for the document. All raised issues were resolved.
No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document at any time.
All authors have stated that none of them is aware of any IPR related to the
draft.
The working group is solidly behind this document.
Document Quality:
The current version of the draft is clear, seems to have resolved all the
issues, and has the consensus of the working group.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Greg Mirsky
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Martin Vigoureux
(3) The Document Shepherd reviewed and shared his comments with the authors and
the WG. All the comments were addressed.
(4) The document has been thoroughly reviewed by SFC experts.
(5) The Document Shepherd doesn't see the need for any specific review of the
document.
(6) The Document Shepherd has no concerns with any part of the document.
(7) All authors have stated that none of them is aware of any IPR related to
the draft.
(8) No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document at any time.
(9) The working group is solidly behind this document.
(10) There was no opposition to progressing this document.
(11) The document is ID nits free.
(12) The document does not require MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
type reviews.
(13) All the references are properly listed in the normative and informative
lists.
(14) No document has normative reference dependency on this document.
(15) The document includes a downward reference to RFC 7665 SFC Architecture.
That is reasonable, as a reader is expected to be familiar with SFC's
principles and elements.
(16) The publication of this document does not update any published RFC.
(17) The document requests IANA to allocate two types from the "NSH
IETF-Assigned Optional Variable-Length Metadata Types".