Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents:

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## 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 was strong strong support from the working group for adopting this and
for publishing as a BCP. During development there was review in TSVWG and
coordination with groups outside the IETF, see below. When published, this
specification will update RFC3819 (and include in this BCP).

The WG reached consensus to publish following a WGLC that concluded 25th May
2021. There were some objections to this consensus.  A number of issues were
raised by the WG and were addressed in early development. The document then
became mature and has already been used as informational reference in published
RFCs. After WGLC discussion focussed on issues to complete the document:
finalising the examples, interactions with L4S and completion of the document.

Various factors contributed to a final delay in progression to publication,
including additional discussion on specific parts of the draft and the included
examples, availability of a WG Chair review, unavailability of the editors for
a period. The Chairs think that all topics raised in the WGLC have now been
discussed and the text has been updated.  Rev -18 of the ID was published 7th
September 2023 and is ready to proceed.

This ID ought to be published as an RFC at the same time as

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

Sebastian Moeller repeatedly questioned on the mailing list the use of
recommendations that were based on an earlier BCP, i.e. RFC 7141, saying that
some of the earlier concepts recommended in RFC 7141 were yet to be
implemented. The chairs and editors are content that the current revision has
considered this feedback and looked into these topics, and that citing RFC 7141
is consistent with good practice.

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.)


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

This ID targets publication s a BCP.

## 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.

* IEEE: No known current relevant work, but was made aware of the work.
  Liaison request: (2015)

* 3GPP: 6 relevant WGs and 20 relevant TRs.
  These were analysed and a formal response returned on behalf of the WG.
    Formal liaison response:
    For summary, see slides 3-8:

The primary interactions is between packet marking in the network and the
protocol mechanisms developed by transport area working groups. These are TSV
Area topics.

INAREA review is valued, since this has implication on the forwarding within

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.

Not applicable.

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]?

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

## 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?

This is ready.

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


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?

Best Current Practice.

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, this was confirmed by both editors.

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.


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][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some formatting warnings that are expected to be resolved in RFC-Edit.

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


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative


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.


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?


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.

It will update RFC3819, and should be included in BCP 89.

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]).

This ID includes no request to IANA.

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.

This ID includes no request to IANA.



These RFCs have referenced this informatively as work-in-progress:

RFC 8033        PIE: A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat

RFC 8087        The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
RFC 8311        Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
Experimentation RFC 9305        Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Generic
Protocol Extension

These IDs will reference this RFC when published:

draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support    TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of
Links): ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) Support  - normative reference,
in RFC-ED queue. draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim     Propagating Explicit
Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers Separated by a Shim -
normative reference, submitted for publication. draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels IP
Tunnels in the Internet Architecture - work in progress.