(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 describing a use case and the applicability
of Segment Routing to this use case.
(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:
The document describes the motivation and benefits for applying
segment routing in BGP-based large-scale data-center. It describes the
design to deploy segment routing in those data-center, for both the MPLS and
IPv6 dataplanes.
Working Group Summary:
There has been good support during WG adoption and no opposition since
then.
Document Quality:
There are three implementations of the related BGP extensions. There is
no publicly known deployment, but it's said that one is in progress and
another one in preparation.
Personnel:
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.
Full review of this document. Comments sent on the mailing list.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/f5BtvW81G8v0yOD28Z3frdqORjYhttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/uhg7t7WuDt0D9LiSGYD1BbVDMwo
Review of the related BGP extensions in the IDR WG, in particular to check for
consistency. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-03
Review of all emails on this WG document. (emails on the individual version of
the draft are too old/out of sync)
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
- WG Last Call has been forwarded to the IDR WG which host the related BGP
protocol extension: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid -
IDR WG has initiated the WG Last Call of this BGP extension (IDR LC 3/6 to
3/20/2017). - WG Last Call has been forwarded to RTGWG WG which had published a
related RFC (RFC 7938 “Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers”)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7938 - A routing directorate review has been
done by Susan Hares (IDR co-chair).
(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.
No specific review needed.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosed.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc
On a side note, there is also no IPR on the related BGP extension
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid
(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?
The WG as a whole understand and agree with the document, there is WG consensus
and no opposition.
(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. No one expressed opposition to this document.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
ID Nits run fine.
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-04.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?
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] has been submitted to IESG.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid] is currently under WG Last Call in the IDR WG.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No downward normative references.
(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.
N/A.
(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