Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-04

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? 
 
Standards Track. 
 
(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 highlights an important use case of origin validation in eBGP 
egress policies, explaining specifics of correct implementation in this 
context. As the origin AS may be modified by outbound policy, policy semantics 
based on RPKI Origin Validation state MUST be able to be applied separately on 
distribution into BGP and on egress. This document mandates BGP implementations
 supporting RPKI-based origin validation to provide the same policy 
configuration primitives on egress as they are available for ingress and route 
redistribution.
 
 
Working Group Summary: 
 
The document went through the review at WGLC to include comments/suggestions/
changes. The conversation in the WG mail-list and meetings was productive and 
the chairs believe this document is ready to progress.
 
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? 
 
Since the first and only version of the document, there has been support for 
this draft.
 
Document Quality:
 
The document is simple, clear and concise. There are no nits nor is the 
document controversial.
 
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? 
 
None.
 
Personnel:
 
Keyur Patel  (keyur@arrcus.com) is Document Shepherd
Warren Kumari (warren@kumari.net) is 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 read the document and reviewed comments.
 
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of 
the reviews that have been performed? 
 
No concerns.
 
(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.
 
(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. 
 
Not needed. 
 
(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? 
 
Consensus was solid. 
 
(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 threats. 
 
(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. 
 
I did not find any ID nits.
 
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such 
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 
 
Not required. 
 
(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.
 
Not expected. 
 
(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). 
 
Reviewed, and no actions needed. 
 
(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. 
 
Not applicable.
 
(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.
 
Not needed.
 
(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?
 
Not applicable. 
 
Back