# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Shepherd's writeup for version -07 and -10 by Susan Hares.
Shepherd's writeup amended for version -12 by Jeffrey Haas.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
Call: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-07 (2/17 to 3/3/2025)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7GqjhNBsHO7pprm2nkJfso-WSV8/
13 non-Authors supported this publication
Zhuangshunwan (zhuangshunwan@huawei.com)
Nan Geng (gengnan@huawei.com)
Giuseppe Fioccola (giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com)
Chen Ran (chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Fan Zhang (fanzhang.chinatelecom@gmail.com)
Wei Wang (weiwang94@foxmail.com) - China Telcom
Aijun Wang (wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn) -
Zhuo B (zhuo_b@foxmail.com)
Gyan Mishra (hayabusagsm@gmail.com)
linchangwang (linchangwang.04414@h3c.com)
Siyuan Teng (tengsy21@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn)
Chenhao Ma (henhao.M@outlook.com)
Lancheng (qinlc@mail.zgclab.edu.cn)
[13 non-authors, all with comments]
Change suggested in the review:
: Change 1: Aijun Wang (wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn) - [acked for change in -08]
: One suggestion, it will be better for the reader to understand the concepts
: or procedures described in this document, if you can give one figure to
: illustrate the examples(cover intra-as and inter-as) for how to transfer the
: related NRP information via BGP-LS.
No such figure was crafted after version -07. However, significant text was
added afterwards clarifying what specific information is carried in BGP-LS
and how it correlates using consistent configuration.
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> offered comments in version -07 covering
confusing references:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_lrQ-TOTaXKvylLAMVxVorPoYow/
This was addressed in version -08.
In that message, Gyan further offered comments about link color mapping to NRP.
However, this procedure is not addressed or was not seen as applicable for
this informational draft and thus was not addressed by the authors.
Issues raised by Keyur Patel:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Nhcxz6A5SMbeQiJiMGlgAeoEGnY/ were
addressed by version -12.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy on this informational draft.
3 sets of comments comments discussed above.
3. 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.)
No appeals or extreme discomfort.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Not a protocol document, but a informational document.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
IETF Early Reviews for:
a) RTG-DIR (Loa Anderson) - NITs, addressed by revisions (-10).
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/h9EyqzLtZbARYQdWszUYcIE05vk/
b) OPS-DIR (Nagendra Kumar Nainar) - NITs addressed by revision -10
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/O4aJ8VKPK3iCWGtagu_QeOViw7I/
c) SEC-DIR (Corey Bonnell) - NITs addressed by revision -10
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/lSNkZk5uL2lgYlycRcI6UikuKgw/
d) Shepherd's final review of -10
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vVXC3X5xTdf4-NtmWK3_2GdBVsc/
e) Spring document (two normative documents)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Q9-bcDgKXTOBYg988XhHK-oO40o/
(Alvaro Retana)
"draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments is in the WGLC queue"
"We will be waiting on the outcome of the processing of
draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments before moving on
draft-ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn."
f) TEAS listing of the draft-ietf-teas-nrp-scalability as informative document.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/aYRlKFWIV0rOlni4np92vxtWYhI/
"We intend to progress draft-ietf-teas-nrp-scalability and
draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls together. The latter has some open issues that
need to be addressed before the WG can deem them both ready for WGLC. That
said, the documents are sufficiently mature, and we don't see any problems
with draft-ietf-teas-nrp-scalability being listed as an informational
document in the IDR document of interest."
g) LSR document (one normative reference)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt/
The document is held with WGLC done pending on its normative reference to
the same SPRING documents - see email from LSR co-chair
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/VyzFaorWkvpy4vDp5-EaTZCFNeM/
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No additional formal review required.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
No Management structure (Yang) required for informational draft.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
No automated checks required.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Shepherd's review prior to the WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f4-WenPchd58tHvMKfxIh7dWrGE/
Shepherd's review post WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vVXC3X5xTdf4-NtmWK3_2GdBVsc/
spring WG checks for normative document (see above)
lsr WG checks for normative document (see above)
teas WG checks for informative document (see above)
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
ART - not applicable
INT - not applicable
OPS - The shepherd believes the OPS-DIR Early review covered the topics
RTG - The shepherd believes the RTG-DIR Early review covered these topics
SEC - The shepherd believes the BGP-LS base draft covers these issues for this
informational draft. Transport - Not applicable as far as the shepherd can tell.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Informational. Why informational? Because it does not suggest any changes to
on-the-wire in the BGP protocol
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes. WG LC specified IPR for 3 authors.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7GqjhNBsHO7pprm2nkJfso-WSV8/
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
4 authors: all with IPR statements.
Jie Dong (jie.dong@huawei.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/IvBHNRaRA8n5GuSYy6V7bo9Hrro/
Cong LI (licong_ct@163.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VUdJW5LHvcuBBusdxmitwf6QGYI/
Robin (Zhenbin) Li (lizhenbin@huawei.com)
archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TNiWHMoLjbGW8gx1XWBiBgtcCyE/
Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/f4-WenPchd58tHvMKfxIh7dWrGE/
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
This text does not have any RFC-2119, but tool complains about this issue.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
all references are classified appropriately
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All Normative references are IETF documents (WG documents or RFCs)
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
[downref but not be added to the registry]
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt
[downref that may potentially be added to the downref registry but have not yet
reached the stage of WGLC] draft-ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vp
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
Please see point 5 (e) and (g) above. Of them, the maturity and readiness of
the spring WG documents below are somewhat unclear
draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments (PS)
draft-ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vp (informational).
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No changes to existing documents based on this document.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
No IANA changes request.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
No new IANA registries.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/