Shepherd writeup
rfc8549-12

>As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
>Shepherd Write-Up.
>
>Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
>(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  

Proposed Standard. 

>Why is this the proper type of RFC?  

It defines new Information Elements for IPFIX to carry various BGP communities. 

>Is this type of RFC indicated in the
>title page header?

Yes.    

>(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
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
>  or introduction.

By introducing new Information Elements (IEs), this draft extends the existing BGP related IEs to enable IPFIX [RFC7011] to export the BGP community information, including the information of BGP standard community [RFC1997], BGP extended community [RFC4360], and BGP large community [RFC8092].  Network traffic information can then be accumulated and analysed at the BGP community granularity, which represents the traffic of different kinds of customers, services, or geographical regions according to the network operator's BGP community planning.  Network traffic information at the BGP community granularity is useful for network traffic analysis and engineering.
  
>Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or 
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
>  rough?

There was some discussion about the use cases of BGP community and collection of BGP community based traffic statistics. According to feedbacks on the mailing list, it seems the consensus is the use cases are valid and the IEs defined in this draft useful. 

>Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
>  review, on what date was the request posted?

So far there is no implementation of this document. Some vendors may have plan to implement this. 
Gen-Art review on -04 version:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5BKGzbqdp6XUaJGNkWfJaVFmlR4
Gen-Art re-review and a RTG-DIR review on -06 version:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/uNwykciJuo0Y-Fpmxv6eFea0wWE
After the above review, there was discussion about the use cases and applicability of the draft and consensus are reached. The updated version -07 reflected the changes agreed. 
This document received discussions and comments from IPFIX, GROW and IDR WG.
  
>Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd? 

Tianran Zhou
>
>  Who is the Responsible Area
>  Director?

Ignas Bagdonas will normally serve as Responsible AD.

>(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.

The document shepherd think the current version (-07) is ready for publication.

>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
>breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

>(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.

Nothing beyond the normal checks.

>(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.

None. 

>(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.

Yes.
Zhenqiang Li: has IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/kTQA2busaeKeSrGpua0g3iD4JJw
Rong Gu: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/5olW4HFOgpUh1EMZCMPmaHUTuB8
Jie Dong: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Wu8yaAtAWTiBZQHs8RYC795Iu84


>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>disclosures.

Yes, there is one IPR disclosure references this document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3165/
There are discussions about the IPR disclosure. Someone thought the IPR was disclosed late (shortly after the WG adoption). Someone thought the IPR should be withdrawn. Then according to the AD’s suggestion, the chairs initiated one additional consensus call on this document. In the mailing list, there was no objection of proceeding this draft with the disclosed IPR.  


>(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?   

Solid consensus according to the review and discussion in the list.

>(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.) 

No.

>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
>Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
>thorough.

There are some ID nits exist. 
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-07.txt


>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>either normative or informative?

Yes.

>(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?

No. All normative references are RFCs.

>(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. 

No.

>(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.

No, it will not change the status of 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).

IANA is requested to assign the following new Element IDs: 
ElementID         Name
TBA1			bgpCommunity
TBA2			bgpSourceCommunityList   
TBA3  			bgpDestinationCommunityList
TBA4  			bgpExtendedCommunity  
TBA5  			bgpSourceExtendedCommunityList
TBA6  			bgpDestinationExtendedCommunityList
TBA7  			bgpLargeCommunity     
TBA8  			bgpSourceLargeCommunityList
TBA9  			bgpDestinationLargeCommunityList

This document was sent to IPFIX mailing list. 
There were experts performed for the expert review for IPFIX IE registry.

>(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.

No 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.

N/A.
Back