(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?
Standard Track is requested and indicated in the title page header. This is appropriate for a specification of packet steering into an SR policy needing interoperability between the ingress/source of the policy
instantiation and the egress/destination of the policy termination.
(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:
Segment Routing [RFC8402] allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks
to source routing. The headend node steers a flow into an SR Policy.
The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of
segments associated with that SR Policy. This document details the
concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.
Working Group Summary:
This document is a foundation for segment routing policy concepts and steering techniques into an SR policy. It has been largely reviewed, commented on and supported by the working group.
The document is well written with many examples of policy concepts and steering techniques.
The Document Shepherd is James N Guichard.
The Responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux.
(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 has been reviewed before and after the WGLC. Numerous comments and suggested textual improvements sent and were addressed by the document editor.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. There have been a lot of reviews and comments from SPRING contributors and all outstanding comments have been addressed.
(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.
No specific concerns as the document has been widely reviewed by the WG.
(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?
Each author and contributor has replied to the IPR call on the mailing list.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Two IPR disclosure have been filed by the same vendor. No WG discussion on this IPR.
(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?
This document has been largely reviewed and received large support, both from vendors and network operators. It has multiple implementations and deployments.
The specification has several implementations for many years. The following are the links to the whitepapers released publicly by EANTC:
Note that these whitepapers do not explicitly reference the draft. Rather, they reference BGP-SRTE, PCEP or Netconf based mechanisms for provisioning/signaling of SR Policies.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.
Idnits has been run and any errors have been corrected.
Internet-Drafts Checklist done.
Shepherd has reviewed the draft and made comments. Those have been addressed by the editor.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has no MIB, Yang model, media type or URI type.
(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 active RFCs.
(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.
(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).
The IANA considerations are consistent with the body of the document. No additional comments or concerns.
(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 document contains a "Guidance for Designated Experts" section.
(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.
The document has no sections written in formal language.
(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?
The document does not define a YANG module but makes reference to I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang section-11 as part of the manageability considerations.