(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?
Requested status is "Informational" as indicated in the title page header.
This is appropriate for a document documenting how to solve the BGP Egress Peer Engineering use case using Segment Routing and the Segment Routing BGP-LS extensions.
(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:
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a
packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by
prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any
instruction topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a
flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining
per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.
This document illustrates the application of Segment Routing to solve
the BGP Egress Peer Engineering (BGP-EPE) requirement. The SR-based
BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized (Software Defined Network, SDN)
controller to program any egress peer policy at ingress border
routers or at hosts within the domain.
Working Group Summary:
There has been support during working group adoption and no controversy.
There are three implementations of the BGP-LS extensions defined in draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe and enabling the Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer Engineering described in this document.
RTG directorate review found the document very clear.
Bruno Decraene is the Document Shepherd.
Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.
(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.
I've reviewed draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-03 and sent a set of comments to the authors a SPRING WG.
I've reviewed the IDR WG BGP-LS extensions required for this document. I've found some lack of alignment between both documents, both on the terminology and some protocol extensions. They have been addressed by the authors.
I've asked authors of the BGP-LS extensions and the IDR chairs about the maturity of the BGP-LS extension. As a result, IDR ran WG LC from 2017/02/15 to 2017/3/1.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The BGP-LS extension is in WG last call in IDR and has three implementations.
A recent routing directorate review has been done by Jonathan Hardwick. His comments have been addressed by authors.
(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.
(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.
(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?
All authors have confirmed IPR disclosure, except Daniel Ginsburg who has not responded since the July 20'16 IPR call, despite multiple requests from the chairs and the editor of the document. As a consequence he has been removed from the list of authors and listed as contributor.
(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 have been filed for this document. During WG Last Call, chairs reminded the WG about those two IPRs. There has been no WG comments on those IPRs.
(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 understand the document and agree with it: there has been significant support during WG adoption.
Post WG adoption, WG involvement has been limited.
(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.)
(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.
Idnits run fine. There is one outdated reference, but this is expected as many WGLC are running in parallel (both in SPRING and IDR WG)
No significant nits found in my review sent on the mailing list.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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 will not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(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 5226).
There is no IANA section and no need for one.
(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.
(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, etc.