Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-08

[Ballot discuss]
So there might be something missing here in regards to zero-checksum in UDP when using IPv6. So Section 3.1 in RFC 7510 discusses this for MPLS over UDP and have some considerations that needs to be done if one are intending to use zero checksum. To me it appears that DETNET flows can not be guaranteed to always fulfill these, and in case you think you can motivate it should probably be stated explicitly and normatively allow it. So if it can't be guaranteed to fulfill these requirements then the next question exists: Do the possibility to use zero-checksum for this flow become something the control plane needs to signal it?

[Ballot comment]
Basically just nits here; as the shepherd writeup notes, it's "pretty
much just putting the pieces together".

Section 1

  2.  A method for carrying the DetNet sequence number.

  3.  A method for distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data
      packets.

(nitty nit) these two are in the reverse order as they appear in
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls

Section 3

                                                    The UDP and IP
  header information is used to identify DetNet flows, including member
  flows, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip].  [...]

I couldn't find where draft-ietf-detnet-ip discussed member flows; could
you give me a pointer?

Section 4

  To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over UDP encapsulation, an
  implementation MUST support the provisioning of UDP and IP header
  information in addition or in place of F-Label(s).  Note, when PRF is

nit: s/in addition/in addition to/

Section 5

  o  Label information (A-labels, S-labels and F-labels) to be mapped
      to UDP/IP flow.  Note that for example, a single S-Label can map

nit: s/flow/flows/ (singular/plural mismatch between "labels" and "flow")

Section 6

The only potentially new consideration to the mpls-over-udp formulation
of detnet is that the forwarding logic can be split across two places
(IP+UDP headers and MPLS label stack), which makes implementation
somewhat more complext and thus prone to error.  But that's probably
more of an implementation issue than a protocol issue, so I don't feel
very strongly that it must be documented here.

That said, I would also not be opposed to repeating the (still somewhat
evolving, I guess) boilerplate from the other detnet RFCs/drafts about
"security aspects which are unique to DetNet".  The reasoning is that we
have a default Internet threat model, espoused in RFC 3552, and anything
detnet fundamentally has to consider a weaker threat model in order to
be able to do anything useful.  Since this document, in addition to the
referenced ones, is also deviating from the default Internet threat
model, that can be worth noting explicitly.

  [RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security].  Finally,MPLS and IP

nit: space after comma.

Section 10.2

(draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header is RFC 8754, now, though I'm
sure the RFC Editor will catch that.)

[Ballot comment]
I would like to thank the authors for this easy to read and understand document, and also thank Dan for his OPSDIR review.

Related to Dan's question on the manageability section, as a non blocking comment, I wonder whether it would be helpful to have informational references to either the Detnet YANG model or the Detnet OAM documents?  This might be helpful to future readers when they are relating the suite of Detnet documents together.  However, I appreciate that this would create forward references to those documents and will leave it to the discretion of the authors (and responsible AD) to decide whether such references would be helpful here.  It would also be worth noting that adding such references may also create an inconsistency with the other Detnet documents currently in the RFC editor queue unless they also have similar references added.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
In Section 1, I believe "queuing" should be "queueing".

In Section 6, the sentence beginning "Notably" isn't a sentence.  I suggest:

OLD:

  Notably [RFC7510], as this document
  is primarily an application of MPLS-in-UDP.

NEW:

  Of particular note is [RFC7510], as this document
  is primarily an application of MPLS-in-UDP.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

I have the same question as Erik Kline + a minor nit draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 is not RFC 8754

-éric

[Ballot comment]
[[ questions ]]

[ section 5 ]

* Should the IPv6 flow label be included in this information summary?
  7510 and ietf-detnet-ip both discuss using the flow label when the
  outer header is IPv6...

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

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06, 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 2020-09-10):

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


The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet)
to consider the following document: - 'DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP'
  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 2020-09-10. 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 MPLS Deterministic Networking data plane
  operation and encapsulation over an IP network.  The approach is
  modeled on the operation of MPLS and over UDP/IP packet switched
  networks.




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



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 , 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network.  The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510].  It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. Procedures and control information 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 draft 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. 

(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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network.  The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510].  It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. Procedures and control information 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 draft 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. 

(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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network.  The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510].  It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. Procedures and control information 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 draft 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. 

(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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network.  The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510].  It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. Procedures and control information 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 draft 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. 

(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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network.  The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510].  It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. Procedures and control information 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 draft 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network.  The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510].  It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. Procedures and control information 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 draft 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP 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 MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an IP network.  The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510].  It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. Procedures and control information 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 draft 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.