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)?
(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?
(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 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.
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).
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who 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.
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.
(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
(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.)
(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.
(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?
(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.
(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).
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.
(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.