Performance Measurement Using Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) for Segment Routing over the MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls-11

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
 
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The draft has achieved broad consensus following years of active discussion,
refinement, and community feedback, rather than just passing silently among
a small group of authors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The document faced no controversy, and all technical decisions and the choice
to split the draft into MPLS and SRv6 variants were achieved through smooth,
broad consensus.

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.)

No one has threatened an appeal, nor has anyone indicated extreme discontent
regarding this draft.

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)?

Based on the draft's contents and WG history:
Existing Implementations: Multiple hardware and software vendors have already
implemented the STAMP extensions for SR-MPLS.
Reported in the Document: The document explicitly includes an "Implementation
Status" section (Section 13) in accordance with RFC 7942. This section details
known implementations and interoperability testing.

## 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 necessary reviews and alignment with both the IPPM and MPLS Working Groups
through presentation and email list discussion have effectively
occurred throughout the lifecycle of the draft.

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.

Based on the contents of the document, this draft does not require formal MIB
Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, or URI type reviews. These specific formal
expert reviews are not applicable to the contents of this draft.

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]?

This question is not applicable to this draft.

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.

Because none of these formal languages are present in the document, no automated
syntax or formatting validation tools (such as BAP, smilint, or pyang) were
necessary or utilized.

## 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, my review confirms that this document is needed, clearly written, complete,
correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.
The document fulfills a clear operational requirement for Segment Routing
performance measurement over the MPLS data plane. It is mature, having benefited
from years of extensive review and iteration as part of its parent draft, and
the current specification is validated by multiple active vendor implementations.

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?

Routing Area (RTG): No area-specific issues have been identified. The document
conforms to standard Routing Area practices for protocol extensions, particularly
those related to MPLS encapsulations and segment routing path validation. 

Operations and Management (OPS): The draft strictly relies on the IPPM architecture
already finalized in RFC 8762 and RFC 8972. Because it doesn't introduce new
operational models or management interfaces, the common OPS Area issues regarding
management plane completeness are not applicable.

Security (SEC): The document's security considerations have been addressed in alignment
with general IESG guidelines, relying on the inherent security mechanisms of STAMP and
SR-MPLS.

No known issues remain at this stage. 

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?

It's currently requested as "Informational". Based on the content of the document,
the more proper intended status might be "Proposed Standard". I have raised the
discussion point in the email list. This issue needs to resolved before advancing
this document to the next step.

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.

Yes, reasonable efforts have been made. The standard IPR disclosure obligations
have been brought to the attention of the authors. To the best of our knowledge,
all required disclosures have been filed and all authors and contributors have
replied to the IPR poll.

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, all authors and contributors listed on the draft have shown their
willingness to be listed. The total 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.)

There are no remaining I-D nits in this document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references are correctly classified. No informative references need to be
made normative, or vice-versa.

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 IETF RFCs and are freely available to anyone.

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.

The publication of this document does not update or obsolete any existing RFCs.

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]).

The current IANA section asks for an MNA Opcode. It fails to specify which
range the opcode should be assigned from. The Network Action Opcodes registry
defined in RFC 9994 has different allocation policies (IETF Review, Experimental
Use, Private Use). If the authors are requesting a formal assignment, they must
specify the range.

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.

N/A

[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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
 
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The draft has achieved broad consensus following years of active discussion,
refinement, and community feedback, rather than just passing silently among
a small group of authors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The document faced no controversy, and all technical decisions and the choice
to split the draft into MPLS and SRv6 variants were achieved through smooth,
broad consensus.

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.)

No one has threatened an appeal, nor has anyone indicated extreme discontent
regarding this draft.

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)?

Based on the draft's contents and WG history:
Existing Implementations: Multiple hardware and software vendors have already
implemented the STAMP extensions for SR-MPLS.
Reported in the Document: The document explicitly includes an "Implementation
Status" section (Section 13) in accordance with RFC 7942. This section details
known implementations and interoperability testing.

## 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 necessary reviews and alignment with both the IPPM and MPLS Working Groups
through presentation and email list discussion have effectively
occurred throughout the lifecycle of the draft.

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.

Based on the contents of the document, this draft does not require formal MIB
Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, or URI type reviews. These specific formal
expert reviews are not applicable to the contents of this draft.

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]?

This question is not applicable to this draft.

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.

Because none of these formal languages are present in the document, no automated
syntax or formatting validation tools (such as BAP, smilint, or pyang) were
necessary or utilized.

## 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, my review confirms that this document is needed, clearly written, complete,
correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.
The document fulfills a clear operational requirement for Segment Routing
performance measurement over the MPLS data plane. It is mature, having benefited
from years of extensive review and iteration as part of its parent draft, and
the current specification is validated by multiple active vendor implementations.

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?

Routing Area (RTG): No area-specific issues have been identified. The document
conforms to standard Routing Area practices for protocol extensions, particularly
those related to MPLS encapsulations and segment routing path validation. 

Operations and Management (OPS): The draft strictly relies on the IPPM architecture
already finalized in RFC 8762 and RFC 8972. Because it doesn't introduce new
operational models or management interfaces, the common OPS Area issues regarding
management plane completeness are not applicable.

Security (SEC): The document's security considerations have been addressed in alignment
with general IESG guidelines, relying on the inherent security mechanisms of STAMP and
SR-MPLS.

No known issues remain at this stage. 

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?

It's currently requested as "Informational". Based on the content of the document,
the more proper intended status might be "Proposed Standard". I have raised the
discussion point in the email list. This issue needs to resolved before advancing
this document to the next step.

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.

Yes, reasonable efforts have been made. The standard IPR disclosure obligations
have been brought to the attention of the authors. To the best of our knowledge,
all required disclosures have been filed and all authors and contributors have
replied to the IPR poll.

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, all authors and contributors listed on the draft have shown their
willingness to be listed. The total 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.)

There are no remaining I-D nits in this document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references are correctly classified. No informative references need to be
made normative, or vice-versa.

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 IETF RFCs and are freely available to anyone.

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.

The publication of this document does not update or obsolete any existing RFCs.

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]).

The document does not request any IANA action. This assessment accurately
reflects the technical contents of the draft.

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.

N/A

[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/