# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## 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 broad agreement.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Before and during the WG Adpotion Call(see [1] [2] [3]), comments were raised
by the WG about:
a) How bandwidth guarantee is achieved with CS-SR policy. The author added some
additional clarifications in the draft, including:
*to use of dedicated persistent unprotected adjacency-SIDs that are solely
used by CS-SR traffic
*to bring down a CS-SR policy in react to failure
Some suggested that network slicing/resource-aware segments should also be
considered as one of the bandwidth guarantee methods and taken as a reference
(see [4] [5]), this suggestion was not taken.
b) Whether this draft defines mechanisms that emulate optical circuits over IP/MPLS.
The authors had claimed that this draft does not talk about that.(see [6] [7])
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/PyJLnOvzzPXsf6i-_K04ghGXzAA/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/5GAyP-HIAyNZPUkM382y6ji2k_A/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/D785JyDEmhfEdVbKJHuLifmGAyw/
[4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nclV2TB3dUOJ5oe7ntXYsvDcwg4/
[5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6z2o-j6HA87WnQEjRRUJT2Ocb3M/
[6] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/BDWzpWaFYJd4W-9EDES9j59SAfU/
[7] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/tu45FAANxc6Cl27ppmG5DLROpTI/
During the WG LC, comments were raised about how to operate after one segment
list has been failed when a CP with multiple segment lists is used for traffic
transmition, this comment had been addressed by adding clarification text in the
draft. (see [8] [9])
[8] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/e8Gt3_oy6Y8yoI2mJ5W8WBXlh0A/
[9] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/SlPbPJ9n7r4NkkrFePLrsdQLMFo/
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.
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)?
The authors claimed that Cisco and Nokia have partial implementations of the
document in response to the shepherd's question about the implementation .
(see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/1P9izug4gpqE69OzvqCjUP0LpV8/)
## 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, the contents of this document have intersection with technologies in PCE,
IDR and IPPM WGs, it would benefit from their review to check whether this document
has used the related protocols(e.g, PCEP, BGP, STAMP) correctly.
These reviews have not occured yet.
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.
No such formal language.
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]?
No 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.
No formal language.
## 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?
Yes.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
The shepherd has checked the lists of common issues, no special issue of this
document has been found.
There's no directorate review yet.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The intended RFC status is informational and document reflects it in the datatracker.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.
All the authors and contributors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of
any undisclosed IPR related with the document.
Their claims can be found at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ILJftItJrd7P8ZNn7XQEvrsC7m0/,
and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/mguEnQ1pKVUUa15vmDYKfPXtseQ/
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.
There are five co-authors on the front page. By responding to the IPR poll, the
authors and contributors have implicitly confirmed their willingness to be listed.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No remaining I-D nits in this document.
Idnits has been run and error corrected.
Internet-Drafts Checklist done.
Shepherd has reviewed the draft and made comments. Those have been addressed by
the editor.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
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 references are publicly available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
No.
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?
Yes. The status of the non-RFC documents in the normative references based on
the search of the datatraker and the WG wiki are listed below:
Name Status
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy RFC Ed Queue
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi RFC Ed Queue
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp RFC Ed Queue
draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path WG Last Call Queue
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment Expired in April,completion plan unclear
draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions In progress,completion plan unclear
draft-ietf-pce-multipath In progress,completion plan unclear
draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang In progress,completion plan unclear
draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm In progress,completion plan unclear
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, this document is standalone.
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][11]).
This document requires no action from IANA.
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.
N/A.
[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/