[MBONED] Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-mboned-multicast-telemetry-08

[Max Franke <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I have submitted the shepherd writeup for this document, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-multicast-telemetry/shepherdwriteup/ or below.

Best,

Max

———————

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4858/>][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

The document reached strong consensus to advance, with contributors from both
the MBONED WG as well as the IPPM WG voicing support.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.

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 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/>][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is not a protocol 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.

This draft was originally presented at the IPPM WG but it was decided there
that it should either go to the PIM or MBONED WG. At the end, MBONED was the
most fitting and took on the document. During the development of the document,
close coordination with IPPM occurred, which also included reviews.

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 models or types are used in the document so no expert reviews are necessary.

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 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/>][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

The document does not include any formal language sections.

## 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?

Yes, the document is well written and complete. The necessity to modify IOAM to
reduce data redundancy when used with multicast is obvious.

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?

The listed issues do not appear in the document:

    - DNS: The Document is not related to DNS.
    - Use of IPv6 packets with extension headers or fragments: There are no
    special considerations for IPv6, the Document references RFC 9486 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9486/> for this
    topic. - Assumptions of how end-user networks connect to the Internet: The
    document makes no such assupmtions. - Use of QoS markings: The document
    does not have any QoS markings. - Use of MIBs and YANG modules: The
    document does not have any MIBs or YANG modules.

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?

Proposed Standard. This is appropriate given that this document defines two
extensions to other proposed standards. The data tracker reflects this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
   property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/>][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, the co-authors have filed their disclosures on the MBONED mailing list.
Two authors listed a potentially relevant IPR: -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/zARa_b8Dww0JiYs8mdi7CqcwkWw/ -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/41YsoioPnPpWdUxJpnge7UxRJ44/ -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mboned-multicast-telemetry

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.

Yes, all authors are listed. There are 6 authors. All 6 authors made
significant contributions to this document. As per RFC7322 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7322/>, it might be
appropriate to name one or two editors.

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 <http://authors.ietf.org/>][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
   some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some outdated references that have already been acknowledged by the
authors and will be fixed in the next version of the ID.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
   Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
   the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
   references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/>][9] and [BCP
   97 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp97/>][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
   list them.

None.

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?

None.

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.

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 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/>][11]).

There are 2 new extension flag registrations to the "IOAM DEX Extension-Flags"
registry requested by the document. Both are reflected and specified in the
text of the document. Their names are reasonable.

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.

There are no IANA considerations that require designated expert review.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/