Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
draft-ietf-spring-bfd-12

This shepherd write-up is per RFC 4858 and based on the template published
on the IESG site. This version is dated 4 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?

pending WGLC completion

2) Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No; to be confirmed after WGLC completion

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; to be confirmed after WGLC completion

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

Partial implementation reporting; to be updated after fresh implementation
poll during WGLC

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.

Yes. With BFD - to be polled for WGLC


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.

not applicable

7) If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of 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 RFC 8342?

not applicable

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.

Has been run clean through idnits; others don't apply - to be checked after
WGLC

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?

To be checked after WGLC

10) Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

RTGDIR and OPSDIR reviews recommended; yet to happen

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?

Experimental; however only a small part of the document is experimental while
the rest is more suitable as standards track or informational - to be
concluded during WGLC


12) Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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 IPR has been declared on this document.

Yes - all authors & contributor have responded to the IPR poll before the WGLC.

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.

Yes and not applicable

14) Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None; to be confirmed after WGLC

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

None; to be confirmed after WGLC

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

None; to be confirmed after WGLC

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

None; to be confirmed after WGLC

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?

None; to be confirmed after WGLC

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.

No; to be confirmed after WGLC

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).

Issues exist with experimental track document creating registry with standards
action allocation and allocating from standards action registry.

Resolution to be confirmed at end of WGLC

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.

Confirmed that this is in order; to be checked after WGLC

After discussion with the authors about the dependency of this draft on draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed, it was decided to change the intended status from Proposed Standard to Experimental.