(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?
The document specifies two models of EVPN inter-subnet forwarding
with corresponding procedures and encodings, so it needs to be
a standard track document and is properly indicated so in the
title page header.
(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:
Technical Summary
EVPN provides an extensible and flexible multi-homing VPN solution
over an MPLS/IP network for intra-subnet connectivity among Tenant
Systems and End Devices that can be physical or virtual. However,
there are scenarios for which there is a need for a dynamic and
efficient inter-subnet connectivity among these Tenant Systems and
End Devices while maintaining the multi-homing capabilities of EVPN.
This document describes an Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB)
solution based on EVPN to address such requirements.
Working Group Summary
The document went through a couple of rounds LCs with
reviews/comments/revisions, after which onsensus was reached.
Document Quality
There are implementations from major vendors and deployments by major
operators. The document has reached WG consensus and passed WG LC.
Personnel
Document Shepherd is Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang.
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.
Eric Rosen and Document shephered reviewed and provided substantive comments
during the first WG LC in February 2017. The issues have been addressed
and a second WG LC was done in August 2018. Another round of comments from
others have been addressed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
No.
(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. All review comments have been addressed.
(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.
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?id=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding&submit=draft.
No discussions.
(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?
Strong interest, extensive invvolvement/review/comments and solid consensus
in the WG.
(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.
(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
thorough.
IDnits have been addressed.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No specific MIB Docotor, meida type and URI type review is done.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(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?
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps has passed WG LC. Waiting for shepherd write-up.
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement has been submitted to IESG.
(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.
No.
(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.
No.
(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).
IANA assignment has already been done.
(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 registries established in this document.
(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.
Not applicable.