Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
(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
The header indicates "Standards Track"
(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:
This document describes how the existing IPv6 mechanisms for ping and
traceroute can be used in an SRv6 network. The document also
specifies the OAM flag in the Segment Routing Header (SRH) for
performing controllable and predictable flow sampling from segment
endpoints. In addition, the document describes how a centralized
monitoring system performs a path continuity check between any nodes
within an SRv6 domain.
Working Group Summary:
The document went through the normal 6man process of discussion,
presentation at several 6man sessions, adoption call, further
discussion and refinement, working group last, and updated to resolve
issues raised. It is ready to progress to the IESG.
Several working group members did reviews, issues raised in these
reviews were resolved in the latest version of the document.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Ole Troan is Document Shepherd
Erik Kline 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
The Document Shepherd reviewed the document and thinks it is ready to
advance to the IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns, the document is ready for advancement.
While we think there is a fair amount of overlap, good to have some
additional review in IPPM and Spring w.g.s.
(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
(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
No issues or concerns.
(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, all authors have confirmed this.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures have been made.
(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?
There is good support in the working group from the people who are
interested in this technology.
(10) 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 appeals have been threatened.
(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
The only IDnits issues appear to be problems in the tool.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
(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?
All normative references are published 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 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.
(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 8126).
The draft requests requests that IANA allocate the following registrations
in the "Segment Routing Header Flags" sub-registry for the "Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry maintained by IANA:
| Bit | Description | Reference |
| 2 | O-flag | This document |
(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.
(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, YANG modules,
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?