Document History
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 document has been significantly reviewed and is partially implemented.
Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy.
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.
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)?
There are implementations and they are reported in the document (as RFC 7942
recommends).
Additional Reviews
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.
The document closely interacts with technology defined in the MPLS WG but does
not change MPLS specifications. It defines a new type of Local Segment for
Segment Routing MPLS. (Local Segment are defined in RFC 8402, SR-MPLS is
defined in RFC 8660. Both are a product of the SPRING WG)
Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has no MIB, YANG module, media type, URI type, or formal language.
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?
No YANG module.
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
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.
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?
An early RTGDIR and GENART review has been performed.
An early OPSDIR and SECDIR review has been requested but not performed.
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?
STD Track is requested. This is reflected in the data tracker and front page of
the document. This seems appropriate to define a new type of Segment Routing
segment (the Path Segment) which will likely need protocol extensions in YANG
models, signaling and routing protocols (e.g. draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment)
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.
There are five IPR disclosures reported in the datatracker.
No relevant discussion in the WG.
One IPR filed late that was of concern to the chairs
but a satisfactory explaination was provided to the chairs by the filer.
Authors have been asked to indicate whether they know of any undisclosed IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/SkghkLE5JZvw9JGaAOSKRym-toM/
Missing authors have been asked again
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3DvyDu6VnGihxWXn68Y6EsT2UtY/
Following replies have been received:
W. Cheng
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/yBrg0SJTUu5yCzFsZJglRxSYCZs/ H. Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/gEtpviOJWMFwDqzd2uEw9yAgYEU/ C. Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/U_PJl3-i9Ot1qk7jNFsjg101g1U/ R.
Gandhi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/IFJqpu4MCGdxcg5wn2RqKE1_MXI/ R.
Zigler https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/aMyvnakERbEkasT-jfGFOTr__Ro/
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.
Total number of authors is five.
No author and no contributor have complained about being listed as such.
All authors are aware that they are listed as authors as they have replied to
the IPR call.
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.)
IdNits runs fine.
"Content Guidelines" have been reviewed.
Shepherd have reviewed the document multiple times (and as a result have found
nits multiple times, so unfortunately that's not an indicate that there is no
remaining nits) Two different consecutive shepherds have reviewed the document.
Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
References look fine to me.
List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
None.
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.
No
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?
No.
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.
The publication of this document will not change the status of existing RFCs.
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).
IANA section is empty, which is correct.
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.
No new IANA registry.