Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP over MPLS
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-09

[Ballot comment]
Updating to demote my point form Discuss to Comment.
I am still interested in continuing the conversation, which is basically the one
going on in Alvaro's ballot thread, so let's continue it there.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Former Discuss section:

I do see the response to Alvaro's ballot position but I'm still not sure that
I understand what specifically requires this document to be on the standards-track.
Yes, there are differences between IP-over-MPLS and IP-over-DetNet-MPLS, but
(e.g.) how much of the DetNet-specific handling is just "when you send the traffic
onwards you need to ensure the quality of service" which in this scenario means
translating the DetNet IP needs into the DetNet MPLS configuration?  In other words,
a lot of this seems to be just giving information about how to fulfill the existing
requirements from (e.g.) draft-ietf-detnet-ip, so I am not sure that I understand what
the truly new protocol pieces and/or requirements are.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Original Comment section:

Section 4.1

  Figure 1 illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems connected to DetNet
  (DN) enabled MPLS network.  A similar situation occurs when end

nit: missing article ("a DetNet [...] network").  Also, this paragraph
appears after Figure 2, so the reference back to Figure 1 is perhaps
unusual (albeit, as far as I can tell, correct).

Section 4.2

  In Figure 3 "App-Flow" indicates the payload carried by the DetNet IP
  data plane.  "IP" and "NProto" indicate the fields described in
  Section 5.1.1.  (IP Header Information) and Section 5.1.2.  (Other

It seems like the document production pipeline is introducing spurious
periods after the section numbers, which make this a bit confusing (and
some later text, too).

Section 5.1

  flow.  The provisioning of the mapping of DetNet IP flows to DetNet
  MPLS flows MUST be supported via configuration, e.g., via the
  controller plane.

I'm not sure I understand why this requirement is only for "support" --
how else would it be done?

  A DetNet relay node (egress T-PE) MAY be provisioned to handle
  packets received via the DetNet MPLS data plane as DetNet IP flows.
  A single incoming DetNet MPLS flow MAY be treated as a single DetNet
  IP flow, without examination of IP headers.  Alternatively, packets

Just to check my understanding: this would basically just be the
controller plane saying "inbound MPLS S-Label value  is an IP flow
with outbound interface and destination address ", and no IP payloads
are inspected?

Section 7

[I will not repeat the comments from draft-ietf-detnet-mpls that are
also applicable here, but it seems that most of them are.]

There are perhaps some new bits where nodes at the IP/MPLS boundary are
tasked with enforcing the ingress filtering for the MPLS domain even
though both the IP domain and MPLS domain are part of the same DetNet
environment.  In some sense the duty to provide DetNet service and the
duty to protect the MPLS network could be in conflict, and we might want
to say something about how to handle that.

An egress T-PE that does not examine the IP headers might be susceptible
to attacks that generate spoofed IP traffic (and spoofed IP traffic is a
perennial annoyance in Internet environments, so contributing to it is
usually disrecommended).  Perhaps we should encourage at least
consistency checks on the IP headers with the configuration from the
controller plane for the IP flow in question?

Section 11.2

It is again surprising to see draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework
listed as only an informative reference.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thank you for this document.

FWIW, I think that this document should be PS rather than Informational, even if the core protocol specification part of it is very small, i.e. perhaps only sections 5 which is just one page long.  Possibly this could be have specified as part of the base detnet-mpls spec, but I also appreciate that it is arguably cleaner for it to be split into separate documents.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot discuss]
(Very much a "discuss discuss" -- I just want to make sure the conversation
happens, regardless of the outcome.)

I do see the response to Alvaro's ballot position but I'm still not sure that
I understand what specifically requires this document to be on the standards-track.
Yes, there are differences between IP-over-MPLS and IP-over-DetNet-MPLS, but
(e.g.) how much of the DetNet-specific handling is just "when you send the traffic
onwards you need to ensure the quality of service" which in this scenario means
translating the DetNet IP needs into the DetNet MPLS configuration?  In other words,
a lot of this seems to be just giving information about how to fulfill the existing
requirements from (e.g.) draft-ietf-detnet-ip, so I am not sure that I understand what
the truly new protocol pieces and/or requirements are.

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.1

  Figure 1 illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems connected to DetNet
  (DN) enabled MPLS network.  A similar situation occurs when end

nit: missing article ("a DetNet [...] network").  Also, this paragraph
appears after Figure 2, so the reference back to Figure 1 is perhaps
unusual (albeit, as far as I can tell, correct).

Section 4.2

  In Figure 3 "App-Flow" indicates the payload carried by the DetNet IP
  data plane.  "IP" and "NProto" indicate the fields described in
  Section 5.1.1.  (IP Header Information) and Section 5.1.2.  (Other

It seems like the document production pipeline is introducing spurious
periods after the section numbers, which make this a bit confusing (and
some later text, too).

Section 5.1

  flow.  The provisioning of the mapping of DetNet IP flows to DetNet
  MPLS flows MUST be supported via configuration, e.g., via the
  controller plane.

I'm not sure I understand why this requirement is only for "support" --
how else would it be done?

  A DetNet relay node (egress T-PE) MAY be provisioned to handle
  packets received via the DetNet MPLS data plane as DetNet IP flows.
  A single incoming DetNet MPLS flow MAY be treated as a single DetNet
  IP flow, without examination of IP headers.  Alternatively, packets

Just to check my understanding: this would basically just be the
controller plane saying "inbound MPLS S-Label value  is an IP flow
with outbound interface and destination address ", and no IP payloads
are inspected?

Section 7

[I will not repeat the comments from draft-ietf-detnet-mpls that are
also applicable here, but it seems that most of them are.]

There are perhaps some new bits where nodes at the IP/MPLS boundary are
tasked with enforcing the ingress filtering for the MPLS domain even
though both the IP domain and MPLS domain are part of the same DetNet
environment.  In some sense the duty to provide DetNet service and the
duty to protect the MPLS network could be in conflict, and we might want
to say something about how to handle that.

An egress T-PE that does not examine the IP headers might be susceptible
to attacks that generate spoofed IP traffic (and spoofed IP traffic is a
perennial annoyance in Internet environments, so contributing to it is
usually disrecommended).  Perhaps we should encourage at least
consistency checks on the IP headers with the configuration from the
controller plane for the IP flow in question?

Section 11.2

It is again surprising to see draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework
listed as only an informative reference.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Alvaro -- there seems to be a lot of overlap between this and draft-ietf-detnet-mpls, and also "you can carry anything in MPLS" - I don't see what this document adds / does.

[Ballot comment]
(Identical comments as draft-ietf-detnet-mpls – if needed, we can chat about them only once)

** Section 6.  Per “Application flows can be protected through whatever means are provided by the underlying technology”, what is the scope of “underlying technology”, is that an application concern?  Or a DetNet data or control plan concern?  The text isn’t clear on who’s responsibility it is to provide these services (IPSec or MacSec), or what assumptions the application can make?  IMO, the clearer statement to make is that MPLS doesn’t provide any native security services to account for confidentiality and integrity.

** Section 6.  Per “From a data plane perspective this document does not add or modify any header information.”, to be clear, does this text mean “_application_ header information”?  I’d recommend being clear.

** Section 6. Please s/for the mitigation of Man-In-The-Middle attackers/for the mitigation of on-path attackers/

** Note the DISCUSS for draft-ietf-detnet-mpls.  Whatever the resolution on that text would apply here too.  Due to the overlap in authors on both documents, I’m adding the marker for that feedback here as a comment.

[Ballot comment]
(1) I may have completely missed the point of this document; what is it?  More importantly, what is this document specifying?  Why is it on the Standards Track?

As I see it, this document says that IP flows can be carried over MPLS -- ok, specifically over DetNet MPLS.  The mapping of IP flows to an MPLS LSP is no different in DetNet MPLS when compared to "plain" MPLS...nor is it different for IP vs DetNet IP flows -- from §4.2:

  Mapping of IP to DetNet MPLS is similar for DetNet IP flows and IP
  flows.  The six-tuple of IP is mapped to the S-Label in both cases.
  The various fields may be mapped or ignored when going from IP to
  MPLS.

At best, it seems to me that this document could be Informational.


(2) It looks like this document should be tagged in the Datatracker as (also) replacing draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip.


(3) s/both Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packet/both Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets

[Ballot comment]
[[ nits ]]

[ section 6 ]

* Perhaps "flow specific" -> "flow-specific"

* s/needed to provided/needed to provide/

* Perhaps "treatment needed to meet" -> "treatment to meet"
  (or s/needed/necessary/)

[Ballot comment]
In the glossary, "L3" is specified, but it appears nowhere in this document.  Same with "PSN".  Nor does "PE", but "S-PE" does, yet it is not defined.

I concur with Barry's comments on references.

[Ballot comment]
Just one small comment:

  This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
  DetNet architecture [RFC8655] and
  [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework], the reader is assumed to be
  familiar with these documents and their terminology.

I think this makes both of these normative, but the data-plane-framework draft is listed as informative.

[Ballot comment]
In the response to the tsvart review, you said you would add some text here about multipath. I was not able to find any such reference.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/MNJKPDUR57nHMEkH9j2idywThRs/

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lou Berger , Jouni Korhonen , detnet-chairs@ietf.org, Balazs Varga , Stewart Bryant , Don Fedyk , Andrew Malis

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-04-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: eagros@dolby.com, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, detnet@ietf.org, Ethan Grossman , draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet)
to consider the following document: - 'DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-04-23. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
  operating in an IP over MPLS packet switched network.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balazs Varga , Lou Berger , Stewart Bryant , Janos Farkas , Don Fedyk , Jouni Korhonen , Andrew Malis , detnet-chairs@ietf.org

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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

(2) Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document normatively specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.

(3) 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:
This document specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.  It maps the IP data plane encapsulation described in ietf-detnet-ip to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in ietf-detnet-mpls. Procedures and control information that is common to all DetNet data planes can be found in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.

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?

No controversy, pretty much just putting the pieces together.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

At this time there are no shipping implementations of DetNet per se, however clearly IP and MPLS are mature technologies.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?

Several major vendors have been core to the development of DetNet, including Cisco, Huawei, and Ericsson so it is assumed that they plan to implement it.

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, YANG 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?

The DetNet WG have made extensive reviews of the present drafts. In addition, a dedicated Data Plane Design team have met informally, regularly, to review and progress this draft (and the associated set of data plane drafts).
Preceding the WG decisions to use IP and MPLS for the DetNet Data Plane, an extensive review of candidate technologies was done by Jouni Korhonen and team (draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt).

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Ethan Grossman

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

(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.

I have read this document as it has progressed as well as in its final form, and have submitted a number of comments on the previous version, all grammatical and/or formatting, and they have been addressed in this version, along with other comments from other reviewers. The document 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 concerns. Numerous very experienced IP and MPLS WG members have reviewed it.

(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 concerns.

(5) 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 concerns. The progress of this draft has been quite linear, and it is ready to be published.

(6) 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, authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BI3lMBkzr2pebC__kb-eqVU-yEg

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

There were no IPR concerns raised during WG acceptance of the document, nor during the period of its development.

(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?

Very solid.  The document (in the context of the full set of DetNet Data Plane drafts) is mature and has been discussed sufficiently among the broad DetNet WG audience.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

IDNits passes without errors.
There are a few idnits warnings regarding "outdated references" but this is because this is one of a set of drafts that refer to each other and will all be published together, so the RFC editor can fix this once all edits are final. 
There is also a warning "Missing Reference: 'Network' is mentioned on line 174, but not defined" - however, what Idnits is finding is the text  “[Network]” in the figure text (which is part of a diagram) and looking for a corresponding reference, which makes no sense, i.e. this is due to a shortcoming of idnits, not the draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

(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.

(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, N/A.

(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).

N/A, no IANA requests.

(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.

None.

(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, etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

(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?

YANG models related to DetNet are in a separate draft, so N/A here. 

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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

(2) Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document normatively specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.

(3) 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:
This document specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.  It maps the IP data plane encapsulation described in ietf-detnet-ip to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in ietf-detnet-mpls. Procedures and control information that is common to all DetNet data planes can be found in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.

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?

No controversy, pretty much just putting the pieces together.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

At this time there are no shipping implementations of DetNet per se, however clearly IP and MPLS are mature technologies.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?

Several major vendors have been core to the development of DetNet, including Cisco, Huawei, and Ericsson so it is assumed that they plan to implement it.

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, YANG 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?

The DetNet WG have made extensive reviews of the present drafts. In addition, a dedicated Data Plane Design team have met informally, regularly, to review and progress this draft (and the associated set of data plane drafts).
Preceding the WG decisions to use IP and MPLS for the DetNet Data Plane, an extensive review of candidate technologies was done by Jouni Korhonen and team (draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt).

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Ethan Grossman

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

(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.

I have read this document as it has progressed as well as in its final form, and have submitted a number of comments on the previous version, all grammatical and/or formatting, and they have been addressed in this version, along with other comments from other reviewers. The document 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 concerns. Numerous very experienced IP and MPLS WG members have reviewed it.

(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 concerns.

(5) 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 concerns. The progress of this draft has been quite linear, and it is ready to be published.

(6) 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, authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BI3lMBkzr2pebC__kb-eqVU-yEg

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

There were no IPR concerns raised during WG acceptance of the document, nor during the period of its development.

(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?

Very solid.  The document (in the context of the full set of DetNet Data Plane drafts) is mature and has been discussed sufficiently among the broad DetNet WG audience.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

IDNits passes without errors.
There are a few idnits warnings regarding "outdated references" but this is because this is one of a set of drafts that refer to each other and will all be published together, so the RFC editor can fix this once all edits are final. 
There is also a warning "Missing Reference: 'Network' is mentioned on line 174, but not defined" - however, what Idnits is finding is the text  “[Network]” in the figure text (which is part of a diagram) and looking for a corresponding reference, which makes no sense, i.e. this is due to a shortcoming of idnits, not the draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

(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.

(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, N/A.

(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).

N/A, no IANA requests.

(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.

None.

(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, etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

(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?

YANG models related to DetNet are in a separate draft, so N/A here. 

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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

(2) Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document normatively specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.

(3) 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:
This document specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.  It maps the IP data plane encapsulation described in ietf-detnet-ip to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in ietf-detnet-mpls. Procedures and control information that is common to all DetNet data planes can be found in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.

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?

No controversy, pretty much just putting the pieces together.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

At this time there are no shipping implementations of DetNet per se, however clearly IP and MPLS are mature technologies.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?

Several major vendors have been core to the development of DetNet, including Cisco, Huawei, and Ericsson so it is assumed that they plan to implement it.

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, YANG 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?

The DetNet WG have made extensive reviews of the present drafts. In addition, a dedicated Data Plane Design team have met informally, regularly, to review and progress this draft (and the associated set of data plane drafts).
Preceding the WG decisions to use IP and MPLS for the DetNet Data Plane, an extensive review of candidate technologies was done by Jouni Korhonen and team (draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt).

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Ethan Grossman

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

(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.

I have read this document as it has progressed as well as in its final form, and have submitted a number of comments on the previous version, all grammatical and/or formatting, and they have been addressed in this version, along with other comments from other reviewers. The document 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 concerns. Numerous very experienced IP and MPLS WG members have reviewed it.

(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 concerns.

(5) 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 concerns. The progress of this draft has been quite linear, and it is ready to be published.

(6) 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, authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BI3lMBkzr2pebC__kb-eqVU-yEg

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

There were no IPR concerns raised during WG acceptance of the document, nor during the period of its development.

(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?

Very solid.  The document (in the context of the full set of DetNet Data Plane drafts) is mature and has been discussed sufficiently among the broad DetNet WG audience.

(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.)

N/A

(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.

IDNits passes without errors.
There are a few idnits warnings regarding "outdated references" but this is because this is one of a set of drafts that refer to each other and will all be published together, so the RFC editor can fix this once all edits are final. 
There is also a warning "Missing Reference: 'Network' is mentioned on line 174, but not defined" - however, what Idnits is finding is the text  “[Network]” in the figure text (which is part of a diagram) and looking for a corresponding reference, which makes no sense, i.e. this is due to a shortcoming of idnits, not the draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

(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.

(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, N/A.

(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).

N/A, no IANA requests.

(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.

None.

(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, etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

(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?

YANG models related to DetNet are in a separate draft, so N/A here. 

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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

(2) Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document normatively specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.

(3) 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:
This document specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.  It maps the IP data plane encapsulation described in ietf-detnet-ip to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in ietf-detnet-mpls. Procedures and control information that is common to all DetNet data planes can be found in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.

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?

No controversy, pretty much just putting the pieces together.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

At this time there are no shipping implementations of DetNet per se, however clearly IP and MPLS are mature technologies.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?

Several major vendors have been core to the development of DetNet, including Cisco, Huawei, and Ericsson so it is assumed that they plan to implement it.

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, YANG 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?

The DetNet WG have made extensive reviews of the present drafts. In addition, a dedicated Data Plane Design team have met informally, regularly, to review and progress this draft (and the associated set of data plane drafts).
Preceding the WG decisions to use IP and MPLS for the DetNet Data Plane, an extensive review of candidate technologies was done by Jouni Korhonen and team (draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt).

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Ethan Grossman

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

(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.

I have read this document as it has progressed as well as in its final form, and have submitted a number of comments on the previous version, all grammatical and/or formatting, and they have been addressed in this version, along with other comments from other reviewers. The document 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 concerns. Numerous very experienced IP and MPLS WG members have reviewed it.

(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 concerns.

(5) 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 concerns. The progress of this draft has been quite linear, and it is ready to be published.

(6) 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, authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BI3lMBkzr2pebC__kb-eqVU-yEg

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

There were no IPR concerns raised during WG acceptance of the document, nor during the period of its development.

(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?

Very solid.  The document (in the context of the full set of DetNet Data Plane drafts) is mature and has been discussed sufficiently among the broad DetNet WG audience.

(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.)

N/A

(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.

IDNits passes without errors.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

(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.

(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, N/A.

(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).

N/A, no IANA requests.

(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.

None.

(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, etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

(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?

YANG models related to DetNet are in a separate draft, so N/A here. 

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balazs Varga , Stewart Bryant , Janos Farkas , Don Fedyk , Jouni Korhonen , Andrew Malis , Lou Berger

EAG Work in Progress 18Nov19

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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

(2) Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document normatively specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.

(3) 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:
This document specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.  It maps the IP data plane encapsulation described in ietf-detnet-ip to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in ietf-detnet-mpls. Procedures and control information that is common to all DetNet data planes can be found in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.

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?

No controversy, pretty much just putting the pieces together.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

At this time there are no shipping implementations of DetNet per se, however clearly IP and MPLS are mature technologies.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?

Several major vendors have been core to the development of DetNet, including Cisco, Huawei, and Ericsson so it is assumed that they plan to implement it.

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, YANG 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?

The DetNet WG have made extensive reviews of the present drafts. In addition, a dedicated Data Plane Design team have met informally, regularly, to review and progress this draft (and the associated set of data plane drafts).
Preceding the WG decisions to use IP and MPLS for the DetNet Data Plane, an extensive review of candidate technologies was done by Jouni Korhonen and team (draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt).

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Ethan Grossman

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

(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.

I have read this document as it has progressed as well as in its final form, and have submitted a number of comments on the previous version, all grammatical and/or formatting, and they have been addressed in this version, along with other comments from other reviewers. The document 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 concerns. Numerous very experienced IP and MPLS WG members have reviewed it.

(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 concerns.

(5) 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 concerns. The progress of this draft has been quite linear, and it is ready to be published.

(6) 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, authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BI3lMBkzr2pebC__kb-eqVU-yEg

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

There were no IPR concerns raised during WG acceptance of the document, nor during the period of its development.

(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?

Very solid.  The document (in the context of the full set of DetNet Data Plane drafts) is mature and has been discussed sufficiently among the broad DetNet WG audience.

(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.)

N/A

(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.

IDNits passes without errors.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

(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.

(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, N/A.

(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).

N/A, no IANA requests.

(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.

None.

(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, etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

(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?

YANG models related to DetNet are in a separate draft, so N/A here. 

EAG Work in Progress 18Nov19

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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

(2) Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document normatively specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.

(3) 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:
This document specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.  It maps the IP data plane encapsulation described in ietf-detnet-ip to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in ietf-detnet-mpls. Procedures and control information that is common to all DetNet data planes can be found in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.

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?

No controversy, pretty much just putting the pieces together.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

At this time there are no shipping implementations of DetNet per se, however clearly IP and MPLS are mature technologies.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?

Several major vendors have been core to the development of DetNet, including Cisco, Huawei, and Ericsson so it is assumed that they plan to implement it.

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, YANG 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?

The DetNet WG have made extensive reviews of the present drafts. In addition, a dedicated Data Plane Design team have met informally, regularly, to review and progress this draft (and the associated set of data plane drafts).
Preceding the WG decisions to use IP and MPLS for the DetNet Data Plane, an extensive review of candidate technologies was done by Jouni Korhonen and team (draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt).

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Ethan Grossman

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

(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.

I have read this document as it has progressed as well as in its final form, and have submitted a number of comments on the previous version, all grammatical and/or formatting, and they have been addressed in this version, along with other comments from other reviewers. The document 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 concerns. Numerous very experienced IP and MPLS WG members have reviewed it.

(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 concerns.

(5) 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 concerns. The progress of this draft has been quite linear, and it is ready to be published.

(6) 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, authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BI3lMBkzr2pebC__kb-eqVU-yEg

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

There were no IPR concerns raised during WG acceptance of the document, nor during the period of its development.

(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?

Very solid.  The document (in the context of the full set of DetNet Data Plane drafts) is mature and has been discussed sufficiently among the broad DetNet WG audience.

(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.)

N/A

(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.

IDNits passes without errors.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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?

At present this draft makes normative reference to other DetNet data plane drafts which are intended to be published at the same time as this draft.
// No.

(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.

(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, N/A.

(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).

N/A, no IANA requests.

(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.

None.

(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, etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

(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?

YANG models related to DetNet are in a separate draft, so N/A here. 

EAG Work in Progress 18Nov19

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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

(2) Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document normatively specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.

(3) 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:
This document specifies use of the IP DetNet encapsulation over an MPLS network.  It maps the IP data plane encapsulation described in ietf-detnet-ip to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in ietf-detnet-mpls. Procedures and control information that is common to all DetNet data planes can be found in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.

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?

No controversy, pretty much just putting the pieces together.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

At this time there are no shipping implementations of DetNet per se, however clearly IP and MPLS are mature technologies.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?

Several major vendors have been core to the development of DetNet, including Cisco, Huawei, and Ericsson so it is assumed that they plan to implement it.

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, YANG 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?

The DetNet WG have made extensive reviews of the present drafts. In addition, a dedicated Data Plane Design team have met informally, regularly, to review and progress this draft (and the associated set of data plane drafts).
Preceding the WG decisions to use IP and MPLS for the DetNet Data Plane, an extensive review of candidate technologies was done by Jouni Korhonen and team (draft-ietf-detnet-dp-alt).

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Ethan Grossman

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

(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.

I have read this document as it has progressed as well as in its final form, and have submitted a number of comments on the previous version, all grammatical and/or formatting, and they have been addressed in this version, along with other comments from other reviewers. The document 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 concerns. Numerous very experienced IP and MPLS WG members have reviewed it.

(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 concerns.

(5) 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 concerns. The progress of this draft has been quite linear, and it is ready to be published.

(6) 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, authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BI3lMBkzr2pebC__kb-eqVU-yEg

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

There were no IPR concerns raised during WG acceptance of the document, nor during the period of its development.

(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?

Very solid.  The document (in the context of the full set of DetNet Data Plane drafts) is mature and has been discussed sufficiently among the broad DetNet WG audience.

(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.)

N/A

(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.

IDNits passes without errors.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

(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.

(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, N/A.

(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).

N/A, no IANA requests.

(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.

None.

(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, etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

(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?

YANG models related to DetNet are in a separate draft, so N/A here. 

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balazs Varga , Stewart Bryant , Janos Farkas , Don Fedyk , Jouni Korhonen , Andrew Malis , Lou Berger

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balazs Varga , Stewart Bryant , Janos Farkas , Don Fedyk , Jouni Korhonen , Andrew Malis , Lou Berger

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balazs Varga , Lou Berger , Stewart Bryant , Janos Farkas , Jouni Korhonen , Andrew Malis , detnet-chairs@ietf.org