As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
Proposed Standard is the type of RFC being requested. This is indicated in the header.
This Document defines the functional architecture for Segment Routing.
As, such the type of RFC being requested is the appropriate one.
(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 (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node
steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called
segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
service-based. A segment can have a semantic local to an SR node or
global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any
topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state
only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain.
Segment Routing can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with
no change on the forwarding plane.
Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 architecture, with a new
type of routing header.
Working Group Summary
The Working Groups support the publication of this corner stone Document.
The Document is in good shape and has been reviewed several times.
There are many implementations of Segment Routing technology.
Martin Vigoureux 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 Document Shepherd has done a complete review of the Document, from an editorial, technical, and standard process perspective.
This version is ready for requesting publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern. The Document has been in the hands of the Working Group for quite some time.
It also went through two working group Last Calls and received reviews
(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
No portion need a review from a particular or broader perspective.
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
IPR has been disclosed
No concern was raised against these 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 consensus is 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 one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
ID nits is clean.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review criteria is applicable to this Document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Because Segment Routing technology has generated a lot of documents,
and because this Document took some time before reaching this stage, it references IGP extensions for Segment Routing:
The body of the text of this Document discusses the use of some flags defined by the above documents.
As such, may be these documents should be Normative references.
(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. In the current state, all Normative references are RFCs. However if the three IGP documents were to be moved as Normative References
this wouldn't be the case anymore. On the other hand these Documents should soon be Last Called within their Working Groups.
(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.
There are no Downward Normative references.
(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.
The publication of this Document will not change the status of pre-existing RFCs.
(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 makes no request to IANA.
(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 registry.
(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.
No section requires such checks.