Spec folder for 2025.2 cycle

According to the TC resolution [1] and the release identification
document [2], the release number will be used as primary identifier in
the development cycle. Release name will be used in marketing.

[1]https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20220524-release-identification-process.html
[2]https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html

Change-Id: Ic6c0cc4e51810b907e8c5a80959f9517341c14c7

doc/source/index.rst

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ Specifications and RFEs
 .. toctree::
    :maxdepth: 2
 
+   specs/2025.2/index
    specs/2025.1/index
    specs/2024.2/index
    specs/2024.1/index

specs/2025.2/index.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+======
+2025.2
+======
+
+.. toctree::
+   :glob:
+   :maxdepth: 1
+
+   *

specs/2025.2/placeholder.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+..
+ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
+ License.
+
+ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
+
+====================================
+Example Spec - The title of your RFE
+====================================
+
+Include the URL of your launchpad RFE:
+
+https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/example-id
+
+Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing this feature? A single paragraph of
+prose that **deployers, and developers, and operators** can understand.
+
+Do you even need to file a spec? Most features can be done by filing an RFE bug
+and moving on with life. In most cases, filing an RFE and documenting your
+design in the devref folder of neutron docs is sufficient. If the feature
+seems very large or contentious, then the drivers team may request a spec, or
+you can always file one if desired.
+
+
+Problem Description
+===================
+
+A detailed description of the problem:
+
+* For a new feature this should be a list of use cases. Ensure that you are clear
+  about the actors in each use case: End User vs Deployer. Ensure that you identify
+  which area of the core is being affected; for something completely new, it
+  should be clear why you are considering it being part of the core.
+
+* For a major reworking of something existing it would describe the
+  problems in that feature that are being addressed.
+
+Note that the RFE filed for this feature will have a description already. This
+section is not meant to simply duplicate that; you can simply refer to that
+description if it is sufficient, and use this space to capture changes to
+the description based on bug comments or feedback on the spec.
+
+
+Proposed Change
+===============
+
+How do you propose to solve this problem?
+
+This section is optional, and provides an area to discuss your high-level
+design at the same time as use cases, if desired.  Note that by high-level,
+we mean the "view from orbit" rough cut at how things will happen.
+
+This section should 'scope' the effort from a feature standpoint: how is the
+'neutron end-to-end system' going to look like after this change? What Neutron
+areas do you intend to touch and how do you intend to work on them? The list
+below is not meant to be a template to fill in, but rather a jumpstart on the
+sorts of areas to consider in your proposed change description.
+
+* Am I going to see new CLI commands?
+  * Is OpenStack CLI covered in addition to neutronclient?
+* How do you intend to support or affect aspects like:
+  * Address Management, e.g. IPv6, DHCP
+  * Routing, e.g. DVR/HA
+  * Plugins, ML2 Drivers, e.g. OVS, LinuxBridge
+  * Agents, e.g. metadata
+  * High level services, e.g. \*-aas.
+  * Scheduling, quota, and policy management, e.g. admin vs user rights
+  * API and extensions
+  * Clients
+  * Impact on services or out-of-tree plugins/drivers
+* What do you intend to not support in the initial release?
+
+You do not need to detail API or data model changes. Details at that level of
+granularity belong in the neutron devref docs.
+
+
+References
+==========
+
+Please add any useful references here. You are not required to have any
+reference. Moreover, this specification should still make sense when your
+references are unavailable.
+