(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.
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?
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?
(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.
(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.
(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.)
(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-D.geib-spring-oam-usecase should be draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-01
I-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?
(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.
(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.
(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.