(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 ยง5.1) 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