Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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

(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:

   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.

Document Quality:

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?

No concern.
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.

No concern.

(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 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


(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.