> 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)? Why is
> this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
> page header?
Proposed Standard.
This document defines behaviors requried to interoperability of
different implementations supporting TSN networks interconnected
over a DetNet MPLS Network.
> Technical Summary:
>
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
> introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
> there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
This document describes specifies the data-plane aspects of how IEEE
802.1 TSN networks are interconnected over a DetNet MPLS Network.
> 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?
Nothing notable.
> Document Quality:
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
> number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
> 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?
While there seems to be interest in this speficiations from multiple
vendors, there are no publicly known implementations of this
specification. There are no specific reviews worth noting.
> Personnel:
> Who is the Document Shepherd?
Lou Berger
> 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.
The Shepherd reviewed this document as it progressed through the WG as
well as part of Last Call. All significant comments have been resolved.
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No
> (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.
> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.
No concerns. The document basically says use other standards in a
specific way to ensure interoperability. There's slightly more left for
further documents than I would have hoped, but the approach of defining
data-plane first is reasonable.
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/aORVwYHMU61mZ-xyUmWAqU4NpGM/
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
> so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.
No IPR has been disclosed.
> (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?
I think the document has good support from the narrow set of WG
participants interested in this problem space (TSN over MPLS).
> (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.
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 shows unused references that should be removed in the next revision.
> (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. YANG support will be done speperatley based on other work in the WG.
> (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 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).
No requests are made in the document.
> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
> in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
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.
N/A
> (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?
There are no yang modules.