Write-up for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11
(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
(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:
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 draft describes the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing
over an IPv6 data plane.
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?
There were some vigorous discussions with regards to the extensions (and the
underlying technology being supported by the extensions), but nothing
particularly rough in the resulting consensus on the extensions themselves.
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?
There are multiple implementations of this work deployed.
Some implementation status is given in the document which will be removed prior
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd: Christian Hopps
AD: Alvaro Retana
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
The shepherd has reviewed the latest versions of this document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns based on the latest review.
(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
No broader review is required.
(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
The shepherd has a minor concern that the document that these extensions support
(I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming) is still progressing in the IETF with
continued controversy. These IS-IS extensions by themselves are not
controversial; however, the shepherd hopes that this document would not be used
in support dismissing Last Call concerns on the base document (i.e., for it to
be used as an "end-run" so to speak).
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
IPR disclosure has been filed, no WG discussion.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent
the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent,
or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is solid support for this document.
(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.)
The base document that this document supports was appealed, and that appeal was
declined. The shepherd is not aware of any threat to appeal this IGP extension
(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
Unused Reference: 'RFC7370'
(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 references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
There is a reference to the base SPRING documents that this IS-IS extensions
document supports. As mentioned above there continues to be controversy over
the base document, although they do appear to be progressing none-the-less.
(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
The IANA section seems OK. The sub-sub-tlv registry being created does not
include any specific guidance for the designated experts. It does refer to the
relevant sections to which the registry relates.
(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.
The IANA Registry: Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs is being created with expert review.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules,
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?