This is the Shepherd writeup from Pablo Camarillo for
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
There is broad agreement for publishing this document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
While there was widespread support for this document, a few individuals felt
there were unaddressed problems with the draft. There have been threats of
appeal [21] based on the relationship of the SRv6 end points behaviors
specified in this document and those implied by certain sections of RFC 8200
and the SPRING charter restrictions against making changes to underlying data
planes. The spring chairs subsequently consulted with 6man chairs on the topic
and the response from the 6man chairs can be found at [22].
However, the technology described in this document has already been broadly
deployed in production networks by multiple early adopters, and the deployments
have been detailed at the srv6ops BoF in Brisbane, none of which have raised
any such concern on the list.
3. 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.)
Yes, as indicated in previous bullet and the responsible ADs are well aware of
the appeal threat.
4. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Yes, there are several existing and deployed implementations that are listed in
Section 10 of the draft. These include routing vendors (Arrcus, Centec, Ciena,
Cisco, Huawei, Juniper, Nokia, Ruijie Networks, ZTE), merchant silicon vendors
(Broadcom, Marvell), and opensource implementations (Linux Kernel, FD.io VPP,
SONiC/SAI, ONOS, P4). There have been various industry interoperability events
over the past years with multiple vendors and implementations such as the ones
detailed in [23][24].
## Additional Reviews
5. 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 describes new SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors. There were good reviews in
SPRING WG and several people from 6MAN WG expressed support. Note that the
SPRING WG chairs have ensured to involve the 6MAN WG throughout the process.
[25].
6. 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 model, media type, or URI type.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
N/A. No YANG model.
8. 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.
N/A.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. 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.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
There have been multiple directorate reviews (SECDIR, INTDIR, OPSDIR, RTGDIR).
The directorate reviews have not found any issue.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard is requested and indicated in the title page header. This is
appropriate for a specification of data plane processing needing
interoperability between the different nodes.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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 have been two IPR calls throughout the progression of this draft (WG
adoption and WG Last Call). All authors have replied on the mailing list. There
have been 7 IPR disclosures, all tracked in the Datatracker.
13. 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.
Yes, they have shown their willingness to be listed.
The number of authors and editors on the front page is five.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Idnits has been run and error corrected.
Internet-Drafts Checklist done.
Shepherd has reviewed the draft and made comments. Those have been addressed by
the editor.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are freely available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
No.
18. 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.
19. 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.
No.
20. 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][11]).
I confirm the points.
The IANA section is new codepoint allocations within the SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors registry. The new codepoints belong to the behaviors defined in this
draft. There is no inconsistency between the body of the document and the IANA
section.
21. 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.
None.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[21] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Dj-HjzjvFr8VmgK6H1r1FMbVLMY/
[22] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/OX6z1uWHkkDUJcdlrzxMqniYt7A/
[23]
https://eantc.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/EANTC-InteropTest2023-TestReport.pdf
[24]
https://eantc.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/EANTC-MPLSSDNInterop2024-TestReport-v1.3.pdf
[25] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/hOM8JezKqlxnksz0PdntGH2xO8o/