Shepherd writeup

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? 

Experimental Track as indicated in the title page.

(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:

The draft describes the method and algorithm to add a share of secret by required transit nodes as part of "in-situ" proof-of-transit data which is used by the verifier to validate and ensure that the packet traversed the desired path correctly.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 

The draft was first proposed in 2016 and accepted as WG document in 2018. The technical aspects were thoroughly discussed in the mailer list and the comments/feedbacks were incorporated by the authors to significantly improve the document. One such notable feedback is to add the YANG model for proof-of-transit which was included as part of the document.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? 

The document is well written and has significantly improved the quality of the document by meticulously addressing the relevant feedback comments. As part of WGLC, there were few comments from the reviewers in the mailing list should be incorporated as agreed by the co-authors of the draft. Few are listed below: 


Who is the Document Shepherd? 

Document Shepherd - Nagendra Kumar Nainar

Who is the Responsible Area Director? 
Responsible Area Director - Martin Vigoureux

(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. 

While the document is in good shape, additional comments needs to be addressed that are raised by the reviewers as part of the WGLC. They need to be addressed before moving towards publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No concerns. The document under went thorough reviews by the WG participants.

(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. 

(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. 

No concerns.

(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?

Yes. All the authors and contributors has replied and confirmed that they are not aware of any undisclosed IPRs related/applicable to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

Yes. There are 2 recorded IPR disclosures as below:

(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? 

Very good support for publishing this draft as Experimental RFC. There are some comments that needs to be addressed. But overall, there is support from WG members who are not the authors/contributors of this draft.

(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 threats or threatening concerns raised any of the members.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

- Yes. Section 2 needs to be updated using the new template as below:

"The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here."

Few warnings and outdated references captured from the id nit page:

Miscellaneous warnings:

  == Line 773 has weird spacing: '...e-index    pro...'

  == Line 776 has weird spacing: '...ynomial    uin...'

  == The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but
     does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list.

  -- The document date (June 16, 2020) is 40 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-27) exists of

A quick comment based on my reading below:

==> Section 5.2.2 is a tree representation and I think it is not a code. So 

<CODE BEGIN> and <CODE END> can be removed I think.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

This document includes YANG module for proof-of-transit. No errors or warnings observed as part of YANG validation.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

Yes. There is no missing reference.

(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? 

There are 2 normative referenced document that are WG documents as below:


Both the documents are making good progress with good support from the WG.

(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. 

(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. 

This document defines an experimental/standalone solution and so it does not update or obsolete any existing RFCs/documents.

(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). 

This document does not proposes any new protocol extensions and so does not request any action from IANA. This document leverages the protocol extensions defined in other RFCs/drafts (cited in the normative references).

(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. 

As mentioned above, this document does not require any action from IANA or IANA experts.

(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.

Review comments are listed above.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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?

Yes. The YANG module has been validated using the YANG validator tool and no errors/warnings observed.