(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?
Informational as indicated in the title page header.
This type of RFC is relevant for problem statement and requirements documents.
(2a) Technical Summary:
This document lists requirements and main use-cases to be considered in the
design of architectures aimed at reaching the goals of the SPRING working group.
It highlights the importance of supporting both MPLS and IPv6 data-planes in
SPRING solutions.
It provides a description of use cases (TE, FRR, Disjoint services, …) and
associated requirements, illustrating the expected behavior of a network
supporting such use cases. Detailed documents focusing on specific use-cases
have been proposed to the WG (Resiliency, OAM), and this document refers to
them (as informative references).
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?
This document is actually a solution to a controversy at the early days of
SPRING, where problem description and solutions were tied in single documents.
Debates on the content were numerous and vivid. After going back over all the
threads related to this document, I found no items for which consensus was
particularly rough.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
There is no protocol proposal in this document.
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the
specification?
A large number of vendors have supported the adoption of this draft. A large
number of vendors co-author drafts proposing solutions to this problem
statement.
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?
Yakov Rekhter has provided substantial comments on the Spring ML, aimed at
removing parts of the document that were still oriented towards a solution
proposal.
If there was a MIB 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?
N/A
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Pierre Francois (myself). It was Alvaro Retana initially, but he became the
responsible Area Director, and I inherited the Shepherding task.
(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.
Back in October 2014, the main concerns of the Document Shepherd (Alvaro
Retana) were that some references were still made to an architecture proposal,
although this document cannot pre-suppose that the working group works on an
existing proposal.
The SPRING working group seems to be discussing and reaching consensus on a
single proposal rather than letting multiple independent proposals compete, and
I think it led the authors to making that mistake. This has been corrected
since then.
A lot of terminology was used without reference and Alvaro insisted on this
being solved, aside other editorial comments. These comments have been dealt
with.
(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.
I don’t see any.
(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. All authors have declared they were not aware of any IPR related to this
draft, on the Spring ML.
(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?
The document received strong support from many members of the WG (30+ support
emails during call for WG adoption, after many discussions on its content).
(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 nits.
Outdated references:
I-D.geib-spring-oam-usecase should be draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-01I-D.kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement should be
draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-00
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
I don’t think this applies to this doc.
(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. All normative references are RFC’s.
(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.
This document does no change the status of any existing RFC.
(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).
This document does not request IANA allocations.
(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.
N/A
(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.
N/A