Skip to main content

Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-12-03
11 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2022-06-30
11 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2022-06-30
11 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2022-06-27
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-06-27
11 Michelle Thangtamsatid
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers registry on the Protocol Numbers registry page located atL

https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Keyword: NSH
Protocol: Network Service Header
IPv6 Extension Header: N
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors registry on the Segment Routing registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/

a new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Hex: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Endpoint Behavior: End.NSH - NSH Segment
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Change Controller: IETF

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

Michelle Thangtamsatid
IANA Services Specialist
2022-06-24
11 Derrell Piper Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derrell Piper. Sent review to list.
2022-06-24
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2022-06-24
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2022-06-22
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2022-06-22
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2022-06-21
11 Bruno Decraene
(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? …
(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?

Intended status is Standards Track.
This is indicated in the front page of the draft and in the datatracker.
This seems a proper type of RFC for a document defining (in §5.1) a data plane behavior on the Service Function Forwarders (SFF) which needs to be coordinated with the Segment Routing (SR) source node.

(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 describes the integration of Network Service Header
  (NSH) and Segment Routing (SR), as well as the encapsulation format, to
  support Service Function Chaining (SFC)  while
  maintaining separation of the service and transport planes.

Working Group Summary:

WG Last Call has been copied to the SFC WG. There was relatively limited support but no controversy. The document has passed Routing and Internet directorate review.

Document Quality:

There are no implementation nor implementation plan which have been publicly shared.

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is Bruno Decraene
The Responsible Area Director is Andrew Alston

(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.

Id nits checks.
Multiple complete readings of this document and discussions with authors on the mailing list.
Review of SPRING WG mailing list on the WG and individual draft
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/?q=draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr



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

More reviews would have been better but I've checked with the SFC WG chairs and this level of review is inline with other SFC documents.
I don't have concerns.

(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. An early directorate review has been requested to the Routing and Internet directorate.


(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 concern.
This solution may be useful in some scenario (both SR & NSH used). However, so far there is no implementation.

(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?

Each author has confirmed IPR disclosure on the WG mailing list.
Each contributor has confirmed IPR disclosure on the WG mailing list.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/?q=%22IPR%20call%20for%20draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr%22


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

Two IPR disclosure have been filed.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

There was no WG discussion on the IPR.

(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?

WGLC was performed in the SPRING WG and copied to the SFC WG.
A fraction of the WG supports progressing this document. No objection from the rest of the WG.


(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 one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

(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.

Id nits complains about a non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses but it's actually a section number (4.3.1.1)


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

No such formal review.

(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 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.

Yes, there are two downward normative references:
[RFC7665]  "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture". This document had already been listed as downward normative references for RFC 8300 Network Service Header (NSH)
[RFC8596]  "MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)"


(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.

Publication of this document would not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

Both IANA sections checked.
Plus RFC 8126 section 3.1 reread.

(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.

This document does not define new IANA registry.

(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.

This document does not use 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?

This document does not contain YANG module
2022-06-20
11 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper
2022-06-20
11 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper
2022-06-16
11 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-06-16
11 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, bruno.decraene@orange.com, draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, bruno.decraene@orange.com, draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for Service Function Chaining (SFC)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Source Packet Routing in Networking
WG (spring) to consider the following document: - 'Integration of Network
Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for
  Service Function Chaining (SFC)'
  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 2022-06-30. 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


  This document describes the integration of the Network Service Header
  (NSH) and Segment Routing (SR), as well as encapsulation details, to
  support Service Function Chaining (SFC) in an efficient manner while
  maintaining separation of the service and transport planes as
  originally intended by the SFC architecture.

  Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
  packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFF) along a given
  Service Function Path (SFP) while NSH has the responsibility for
  maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
  context, and any associated metadata.

  This integration demonstrates that NSH and SR can work cooperatively
  and provide a network operator with the flexibility to use whichever
  transport technology makes sense in specific areas of their network
  infrastructure while still maintaining an end-to-end service plane
  using NSH.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4626/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3695/





2022-06-16
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-06-16
11 Andrew Alston Last call was requested
2022-06-16
11 Andrew Alston Ballot approval text was generated
2022-06-16
11 Andrew Alston Ballot writeup was generated
2022-06-16
11 Andrew Alston IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2022-06-16
11 Andrew Alston Last call announcement was generated
2022-06-01
11 Luc André Burdet Closed request for Last Call review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn': Stewart completed 15822 on 28 May 2022.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr/reviewrequest/15822/
2022-05-28
11 Stewart Bryant Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list.
2022-05-24
11 Andrew Alston Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2022-05-05
11 (System) Changed action holders to Andrew Alston (IESG state changed)
2022-05-05
11 Andrew Alston IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-04-22
11 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2022-04-22
11 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2022-04-21
11 Andrew Alston Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2022-04-20
11 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-11.txt
2022-04-20
11 Jim Guichard New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jim Guichard)
2022-04-20
11 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2022-03-23
10 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Andrew Alston
2021-12-13
10 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-10.txt
2021-12-13
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jim Guichard)
2021-12-13
10 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2021-12-08
09 Bruno Decraene
(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? …
(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?

Intended status is Standards Track.
This is indicated in the front page of the draft and in the datatracker.
This seems a proper type of RFC for a document defining (in §5.1) a data plane behavior on the Service Function Forwarders (SFF) which needs to be coordinated with the Segment Routing (SR) source node.

(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 describes the integration of Network Service Header
  (NSH) and Segment Routing (SR), as well as the encapsulation format, to
  support Service Function Chaining (SFC)  while
  maintaining separation of the service and transport planes.

Working Group Summary:

WG Last Call has been copied to the SFC WG. There was relatively limited support but no controversy. The document has passed Routing and Internet directorate review.

Document Quality:

There are no implementation nor implementation plan which have been publicly shared.

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is Bruno Decraene
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.

Id nits checks.
Multiple complete readings of this document and discussions with authors on the mailing list.
Review of SPRING WG mailing list on the WG and individual draft
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/?q=draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr



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

More reviews would have been better but I've checked with the SFC WG chairs and this level of review is inline with other SFC documents.
I don't have concerns.

(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. An early directorate review has been requested to the Routing and Internet directorate.


(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 concern.
This solution may be useful in some scenario (both SR & NSH used). However, so far there is no implementation.

(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?

Each author has confirmed IPR disclosure on the WG mailing list.
Each contributor except Syed Hassan (Cisco System, inc. shassan@cisco.com) has confirmed IPR disclosure on the WG mailing list. Even though his email seems to work, Syed never replied.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/?q=%22IPR%20call%20for%20draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr%22


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

Two IPR disclosure have been filed.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

There was no WG discussion on the IPR.

(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?

WGLC was performed in the SPRING WG and copied to the SFC WG.
A fraction of the WG supports progressing this document. No objection from the rest of the WG.


(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 one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

(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.

Id nits complains about a non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses but it's actually a section number (4.3.1.1)


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

No such formal review.

(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 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.

Yes, there are two downward normative references:
[RFC7665]  "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture". This document had already been listed as downward normative references for RFC 8300 Network Service Header (NSH)
[RFC8596]  "MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)"


(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.

Publication of this document would not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

Both IANA sections checked.
Plus RFC 8126 section 3.1 reread.

(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.

This document does not define new IANA registry.

(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.

This document does not use 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?

This document does not contain YANG module
2021-12-08
09 Bruno Decraene Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux
2021-12-08
09 Bruno Decraene IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-12-08
09 Bruno Decraene IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-12-08
09 Bruno Decraene IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-12-08
09 Bruno Decraene Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2021-12-08
09 Bruno Decraene IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-12-08
09 Bruno Decraene
(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? …
(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?

Intended status is Standards Track.
This is indicated in the front page of the draft and in the datatracker.
This seems a proper type of RFC for a document defining (in §5.1) a data plane behavior on the Service Function Forwarders (SFF) which needs to be coordinated with the Segment Routing (SR) source node.

(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 describes the integration of Network Service Header
  (NSH) and Segment Routing (SR), as well as the encapsulation format, to
  support Service Function Chaining (SFC)  while
  maintaining separation of the service and transport planes.

Working Group Summary:

WG Last Call has been copied to the SFC WG. There was relatively limited support but no controversy. The document has passed Routing and Internet directorate review.

Document Quality:

There are no implementation nor implementation plan which have been publicly shared.

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is Bruno Decraene
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.

Id nits checks.
Multiple complete readings of this document and discussions with authors on the mailing list.
Review of SPRING WG mailing list on the WG and individual draft
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/?q=draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr



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

More reviews would have been better but I've checked with the SFC WG chairs and this level of review is inline with other SFC documents.
I don't have concerns.

(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. An early directorate review has been requested to the Routing and Internet directorate.


(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 concern.
This solution may be useful in some scenario (both SR & NSH used). However, so far there is no implementation.

(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?

Each author has confirmed IPR disclosure on the WG mailing list.
Each contributor except Syed Hassan (Cisco System, inc. shassan@cisco.com) has confirmed IPR disclosure on the WG mailing list. Even though his email seems to work, Syed never replied.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/?q=%22IPR%20call%20for%20draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr%22


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

Two IPR disclosure have been filed.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

There was no WG discussion on the IPR.

(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?

WGLC was performed in the SPRING WG and copied to the SFC WG.
A fraction of the WG supports progressing this document. No objection from the rest of the WG.


(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 one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

(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.

Id nits complains about a non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses but it's actually a section number (4.3.1.1)


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

No such formal review.

(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 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.

Yes, there are two downward normative references:
[RFC7665]  "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture". This document had already been listed as downward normative references for RFC 8300 Network Service Header (NSH)
[RFC8596]  "MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)"


(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.

Publication of this document would not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

Both IANA sections checked.
Plus RFC 8126 section 3.1 reread.

(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.

This document does not define new IANA registry.

(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.

This document does not use 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?

This document does not contain YANG module
2021-07-26
09 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-09.txt
2021-07-26
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jim Guichard)
2021-07-26
09 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2021-07-13
08 Dave Thaler Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dave Thaler. Sent review to list.
2021-06-29
08 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-08.txt
2021-06-29
08 (System) New version approved
2021-06-29
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeff Tantsura , Jim Guichard
2021-06-29
08 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2021-06-28
07 Mike McBride Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Mike McBride. Sent review to list.
2021-06-22
07 Carlos Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Dave Thaler
2021-06-22
07 Carlos Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Dave Thaler
2021-06-22
07 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-07.txt
2021-06-22
07 (System) New version approved
2021-06-22
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeff Tantsura , Jim Guichard
2021-06-22
07 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2021-06-22
06 Bruno Decraene Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-06-22
06 Bruno Decraene Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-06-18
06 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride
2021-06-18
06 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride
2021-06-18
06 Luc André Burdet Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Andy Malis was rejected
2021-06-18
06 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andy Malis
2021-06-18
06 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andy Malis
2021-06-08
06 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-06.txt
2021-06-08
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jim Guichard)
2021-06-08
06 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2021-06-08
05 Bruno Decraene Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2021-06-08
05 Bruno Decraene Requested Early review by INTDIR
2021-05-09
05 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-05.txt
2021-05-09
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jim Guichard)
2021-05-09
05 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2021-04-30
04 Bruno Decraene Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2021-02-16
04 Bruno Decraene https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/kxWor63RxICOD9hADKpEmGzmOiA/
2021-02-16
04 Bruno Decraene IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-02-04
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr
2020-12-11
04 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-04.txt
2020-12-11
04 (System) New version approved
2020-12-11
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeff Tantsura , Jim Guichard
2020-12-11
04 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2020-11-02
03 Bruno Decraene Notification list changed to bruno.decraene@orange.com because the document shepherd was set
2020-11-02
03 Bruno Decraene Document shepherd changed to Bruno Decraene
2020-09-25
03 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-03.txt
2020-09-25
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jim Guichard)
2020-09-25
03 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2020-04-06
02 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-02.txt
2020-04-06
02 (System) New version approved
2020-04-06
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jim Guichard , Mohamed Boucadair , Haoyu Song , Joel Halpern , Syed Hassan , Wim Henderickx …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jim Guichard , Mohamed Boucadair , Haoyu Song , Joel Halpern , Syed Hassan , Wim Henderickx , Jeff Tantsura
2020-04-06
02 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2020-04-06
01 (System) Document has expired
2019-10-04
01 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-01.txt
2019-10-04
01 (System) New version approved
2019-10-04
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Joel Halpern , Wim Henderickx , Jim Guichard , Mohamed Boucadair , Jeff Tantsura , Haoyu Song …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Joel Halpern , Wim Henderickx , Jim Guichard , Mohamed Boucadair , Jeff Tantsura , Haoyu Song , Syed Hassan
2019-10-04
01 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision
2019-08-13
00 Rob Shakir This document now replaces draft-guichard-spring-nsh-sr instead of None
2019-08-13
00 Jim Guichard New version available: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-00.txt
2019-08-13
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2019-08-07
00 Jim Guichard Set submitter to "James N Guichard ", replaces to draft-guichard-spring-nsh-sr and sent approval email to group chairs: spring-chairs@ietf.org
2019-08-07
00 Jim Guichard Uploaded new revision