Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-17
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-03-20
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | # 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 … # 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][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? Consensus was clear on the draft with support from people from various affiliations. The document was updated multiple times as per WG comments. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was no particular controversy. WG commented the draft that was updated accordingly. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are at least two known implementations of the draft. ## 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. No, it's focus is EVPN. 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. N/A 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]? N/A 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. N/A ## 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? After review and updates, the document is clear and can move forward. 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 draft look to be compliant and not matching such issue. Early RTGDIR review has been requested and comments were addressed. 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 is the proper type as the document proposes new procedures that will require interoperability. 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. IPR poll was done at WG adoption and WGLC. 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. There are currently 6 authors. All authors have actively contributed on either building the use case or the solution proposed. 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.) No more nits 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References look OK. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A 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. N/A 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? N/A 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][11]). No IANA action required. 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 IANA action required. [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/ |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | # 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 … # 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][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? Consensus was clear on the draft with support from people from various affiliations. The document was updated multiple times as per WG comments. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was no particular controversy. WG commented the draft that was updated accordingly. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are at least two known implementations of the draft. ## 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. No, it's focus is EVPN. 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. N/A 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]? N/A 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. N/A ## 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? After review and updates, the document is clear and can move forward. 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 draft look to be compliant and not matching such issue. Early RTGDIR review has been requested and comments were addressed. 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 is the proper type as the document proposes new procedures that will require interoperability. 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. IPR poll was done at WG adoption and WGLC. 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. There are currently 6 authors. All authors have actively contributed on either building the use case or the solution proposed. 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.) No more nits 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References look OK. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A 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. N/A 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? N/A 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][11]). No IANA action required. 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 IANA action required. [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/ |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-17.txt |
2023-10-16
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-10-16
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-11
|
16 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-16.txt |
2023-10-11
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-10-11
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-10-11
|
16 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2023-09-20
|
15 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-15.txt |
2023-09-20
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-09-20
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-09-20
|
15 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-19
|
14 | Stephane Litkowski | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2023-09-19
|
14 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-08-31
|
14 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-14.txt |
2023-08-31
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-31
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-08-31
|
14 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-21
|
13 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-13.txt |
2023-08-21
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-21
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-08-21
|
13 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-15
|
12 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-12.txt |
2023-08-15
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-15
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-08-15
|
12 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-01
|
11 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-11.txt |
2023-08-01
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-01
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-08-01
|
11 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-17
|
10 | Donald Eastlake | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2023-07-17
|
10 | Donald Eastlake | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
2023-07-09
|
10 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2023-06-30
|
10 | Stephane Litkowski | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-06-01
|
10 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-10.txt |
2023-06-01
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-06-01
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-06-01
|
10 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-01
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-11-28
|
09 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-09.txt |
2022-11-28
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-11-28
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2022-11-28
|
09 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-21
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-04-19
|
08 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-08.txt |
2022-04-19
|
08 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Neeraj Malhotra) |
2022-04-19
|
08 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-05
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-10-02
|
07 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-07.txt |
2021-10-02
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-02
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2021-10-02
|
07 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-02
|
06 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-06.txt |
2021-10-02
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-02
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2021-10-02
|
06 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2021-09-16
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-03-15
|
05 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-05.txt |
2021-03-15
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-03-15
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra , bess-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-03-15
|
05 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-11
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2021-02-11
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2021-02-11
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | This document now replaces draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility instead of None |
2021-01-18
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2020-10-27
|
04 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-04.txt |
2020-10-27
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-27
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Drake , Ali Sajassi , Avinash Lingala , Aparna Pattekar , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2020-10-27
|
04 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-16
|
03 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-03.txt |
2020-05-16
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-16
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neeraj Malhotra , Aparna Pattekar , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Ali Sajassi , Avinash Lingala |
2020-05-16
|
03 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-05
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-11-02
|
02 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-02.txt |
2019-11-02
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-02
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi |
2019-11-02
|
02 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-19
|
01 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-01.txt |
2019-06-19
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-19
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi |
2019-06-19
|
01 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-00.txt |
2019-03-27
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Neeraj Malhotra | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali … Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |