Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-08

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-11-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Source Packet Routing in Networking
WG (spring) to consider the following document: - 'Path Segment in MPLS Based
Segment Routing Network'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-11-20. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  A Segment Routing (SR) path is identified by an SR segment list.
  Only the complete segment list can identify the end-to-end SR path,
  and a sub-set of segments from the segment list cannot distinguish
  one SR path from another as they may be partially congruent.  SR path
  identification is a pre-requisite for various use-cases such as
  Performance Measurement (PM), bidirectional paths correlation, and
  end-to-end 1+1 path protection.

  In SR for MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS), the segment identifiers are
  stripped from the packet through label popping as the packet transits
  the network.  This means that when a packet reaches the egress of the
  SR path, it is not possible to determine on which SR path it
  traversed the network.

  This document defines a new type of segment that is referred to as
  Path Segment, which is used to identify an SR path in an SR-MPLS
  network.  When used, it is inserted by the ingress node of the SR
  path and immediately follows the last segment identifier in the
  segment list of the SR path.  The Path Segment is preserved until it
  reaches the egress node for SR path identification and correlation.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5009/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3492/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3455/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5063/

(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?

Standards Track RFC. Correctly reflected in the title page header.

(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:

  This document defines a new type of segment that is referred to as
  Path Segment, which is used to identify an SR path in an SR-MPLS
  network.  When used, it is inserted by the ingress node of the SR
  path and immediately follows the last segment identifier in the
  segment list of the SR path.  The Path Segment will not be popped off
  until it reaches the egress node of the SR path.  The Path Segment
  then can be used by the egress node to implement SR path
  identification and correlation.

Working Group Summary:

This document has been largely reviewed by the WG, commented on and supported by the working group.

Document Quality:

No concerns with quality of the document.

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?

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is James N Guichard.
The Responsible Area Director is 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.

The whole document has been reviewed before and after the WGLC. Numberous comments sent and addressed by the document authors.

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

No. There have been a lot of reviews and comments from SPRING contributors and all outstanding comments have been addressed.

(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.

No.

(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 specific concerns as the document has been widely reviewed by the WG.

(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.

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

Four IPR disclosures have been filed as required by IETF policy. No WG discussion on this IPR. One IPR filed late that was of concern to the chairs but a satisfactory explaination was provided to the chairs by the filer.

(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?

WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document based upon extensive review.

(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.

(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.

No nits found for this document and tool runs clean.

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

The document has no MIB, Yang model, media type or URI type.

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

Yes.

(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?

All normative references are already RFCs.

(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.

No.

(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.

(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).

The IANA considerations seem consistent with the body of the document. No additional comments or concerns.

(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.

N/A

(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.

The document has no sections written in formal language.

(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?

The document does not define a YANG module.

(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?

Standards Track RFC. Correctly reflected in the title page header.

(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:

  This document defines a new type of segment that is referred to as
  Path Segment, which is used to identify an SR path in an SR-MPLS
  network.  When used, it is inserted by the ingress node of the SR
  path and immediately follows the last segment identifier in the
  segment list of the SR path.  The Path Segment will not be popped off
  until it reaches the egress node of the SR path.  The Path Segment
  then can be used by the egress node to implement SR path
  identification and correlation.

Working Group Summary:

This document has been largely reviewed by the WG, commented on and supported by the working group.

Document Quality:

No concerns with quality of the document.

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?

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is James N Guichard.
The Responsible Area Director is 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.

The whole document has been reviewed before and after the WGLC. Numberous comments sent and addressed by the document authors.

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

No. There have been a lot of reviews and comments from SPRING contributors and all outstanding comments have been addressed.

(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.

No.

(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 specific concerns as the document has been widely reviewed by the WG.

(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.

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

Four IPR disclosures have been filed as required by IETF policy. No WG discussion on this IPR. One IPR filed late that was of concern to the chairs but a satisfactory explaination was provided to the chairs by the filer.

(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?

WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document based upon extensive review.

(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.

(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.

No nits found for this document and tool runs clean.

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

The document has no MIB, Yang model, media type or URI type.

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

Yes.

(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?

All normative references are already RFCs.

(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.

No.

(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.

(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).

The IANA considerations seem consistent with the body of the document. No additional comments or concerns.

(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.

N/A

(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.

The document has no sections written in formal language.

(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?

The document does not define a YANG module.