Shepherd writeup
rfc8920-16

(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is 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:

Technical Summary:

      This document specifies extensions to RFC 7684 and RFC 8362 to
      facilitate the encodings originally designated for MPLS and GMPLS
      traffic engineering for other applications. This provides the
      ability to specify different attributes for different applications.
      More importantly, it significantly reduces the number of LSAs
      required for emerging applications such as segment routing. The
      savings is 33% for OSPFv2 and 50% for OSPFv3.

Working Group Summary:

      Initially, there was a lot of debate as to whether or not this
      was required as some argued it could be done by just using the
      the MPLS and GMPLS TE encodings for other applications. After much
      debate consensus was reached and this suboptimal solution was
      dicarded. There was at least one holdout who had done some open
      source work with OSPF TE LSAs.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for a multiple years.
      It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only
      clarifications.

Personnel:

      Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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.

     The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
     and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list. 


(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.

      None.

(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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
    so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.
    
     No.

(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 consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress. It took some time to get there but
      we are here now. As mentioned previously, there is one
      outlier who did some open source work.
      

(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.)

  Despite WG consensus, there has been continued opposition 
  from Olivier Dugeon based on open source currently advertising TE LSAs in
  non-TE environments. Here are pointers he provided: 

The link is: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr and more specifically:
 - https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/lib/if.c for the link parameters implementation per interface
 - https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/ospfd/ospf_te.c for the advertisement of link parameters in OSPF
 - https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/isisd/isis_te.c for the advertisement of link parameters in ISIS


(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.

      Nits are all resolved. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
     criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

      Not applicable.

(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.

(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 5226).
  
      The IANA considerations are correct and the OSPFv2 Extended Link 
      attribute TLVs have been temporarily assigned through the early 
      allocation process. OSPFv3 early allocations are being requested. 

(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.

      No 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, etc.
 
      Not applicable.
Back