As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The
document is on the Standard track. The document defines several metadata type 2
variable-length optional context headers for the Network Service Header SFC
encapsulation. Based on the scope of the document, the Standard track is the
most appropriate.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
Service Function Chaining (SFC) uses the Network Service Header, defined in
RFC 8300, to steer and provide context Metadata with each packet. Such
Metadata can be of various types including MD Type 2 variable-length
optional context headers. The document specifies several such context
headers, e.g., Forwarding Context, Flow ID, that can be used within a
service function path.
Working Group Summary:
The document received a good amount of comments from the WG community.
Resulting from the WG discussion, some of the originally proposed context
headers were taken out for consideration in the future.
Document Quality:
The document is well-written and is easy to read. All technical aspects
received a thorough review from the WG. Several vendor companies indicated
their plans to implement MD Type 2 context headers defined in this
specification.
Personnel:
Greg Mirsky is the Document Shepherd. Martin Vigoureux is the Responsible Area
Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. As
the Document Shepherd, I've reviewed the document and shared my comments
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/?gbt=1&index=_S9emNJV_ts58bJrcKZWkWPVeRc).
All the comments have been properly addressed. The document is ready for
publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? I have no concerns about the reviews and
discussions the documennt received from the WG.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Though the
SFC WG always welcomes additional input, particularly from the Security Area
experts, the security aspects for this document are addressed using methods
described in draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity that, at the time of writing this
Shepherd review, is in IESG Review.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The Document Shepherd has no outstanding, unaddressed comments or concerns
about the document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors responded to the IPR poll
to the SFC WG mailing list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/?gbt=1&index=fu7hEqUljp-h1X3LNzjWhZNnZLU
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No
IPR disclosures has been filed in relation to this document.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The document received a strong
support from active members of the SFC WG.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise 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 opposing opinions were expressed, no
one objected to progressing this specification to the publication.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. In my
review, several editorial nits were found and thoroughly addressed by the
Editor.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? All references, normative and informative, are used
appropriately, based on the importance of their information to this document.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion? The document uses
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity, which is in ISEG review, as the normative
reference. It is likely that draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity will be published
well before this document.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure. IDNits reports that the normative reference to the IANA "NSH
IETF-Assigned Optional Variable-Length Metadata Types" registry is a potential
downref.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it
unnecessary. No, the publication of this document would not change the status
of any already published RFC.
(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126). I've found minor editorial nits in the IANA Considerations section.
All my comments have been addressed.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. There is no request to
create a new IANA registry that requires the Expert Review in this document.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. IDNits, Grammarly
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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
RFC8342? N/A