EVPN Multi-Homing Extensions for Split Horizon Filtering
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-03-20
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde |
2024-03-07
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Early review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2024-03-07
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Assignment of request for Early review by GENART to Matt Joras was marked no-response |
2023-12-07
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Matt Joras |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com, zzhang@juniper.net, matthew.bocci@nokia.com from slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com, zzhang@juniper.net |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon ## 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? Strong concurrence of a few active EVPN contributors. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Nokia’s SROS supports sections 2.3 and 3 of the spec. These two require code compared to RFC8365. They also support SHT=00 in section 2.2 and plan to add other types. ## 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. 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. Not 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 Yang model. 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 formal language used. ## 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. 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? None. 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 document specifies standard protocol actions that require interoperability. Yes. 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. Data Tracker does not show IPR. Authors have responded "not aware of undisclosed IPR" during 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. Yes. 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.) Two I-ID nits were reported but they should be ok: -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7432, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC7432 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8365, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC8365 though, so this could be OK. 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][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 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? No. 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]). Yes. 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. None. [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/ |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon ## 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? Strong concurrence of a few active EVPN contributors. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Nokia’s SROS supports sections 2.3 and 3 of the spec. These two require code compared to RFC8365. They also support SHT=00 in section 2.2 and plan to add other types. ## 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. 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. Not 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 Yang model. 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 formal language used. ## 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. 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? None. 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 document specifies standard protocol actions that require interoperability. Yes. 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. Data Tracker does not show IPR. Authors have responded "not aware of undisclosed IPR" during 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. Yes. 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.) Two I-ID nits were reported but they should be ok: -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7432, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC7432 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8365, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC8365 though, so this could be OK. 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][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 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? No. 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]). Yes. 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. None. [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/ |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-08.txt |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Jorge Rabadan | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan) |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2023-12-04
|
07 | Zhaohui Zhang | Requested Early review by GENART |
2023-12-04
|
07 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-07.txt |
2023-12-04
|
07 | Jorge Rabadan | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan) |
2023-12-04
|
07 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-23
|
06 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-06.txt |
2023-10-23
|
06 | Jorge Rabadan | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan) |
2023-10-23
|
06 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-09
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-09-27
|
05 | Zhaohui Zhang | Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com, zzhang@juniper.net from slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-09-27
|
05 | Zhaohui Zhang | Document shepherd changed to Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang |
2023-09-27
|
05 | Zhaohui Zhang | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-09-27
|
05 | Zhaohui Zhang | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2023-09-27
|
05 | Zhaohui Zhang | This document now replaces draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon instead of None |
2023-06-30
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com from slitkows.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-06-30
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Document shepherd changed to Mankamana Prasad Mishra |
2023-04-07
|
05 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-05.txt |
2023-04-07
|
05 | Jorge Rabadan | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan) |
2023-04-07
|
05 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-07
|
04 | Himanshu Shah | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Himanshu Shah. Sent review to list. |
2023-03-29
|
04 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Himanshu Shah |
2023-03-20
|
04 | Luc André Burdet | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Bruno Decraene was rejected |
2023-03-17
|
04 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2023-03-17
|
04 | Dhruv Dhody | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Dhruv Dhody was rejected |
2023-03-17
|
04 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2023-03-14
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-03-14
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2023-03-14
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2023-01-10
|
04 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-04.txt |
2023-01-10
|
04 | Jorge Rabadan | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan) |
2023-01-10
|
04 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-25
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-07-21
|
03 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-07-21
|
03 | Matthew Bocci | Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski |
2022-06-23
|
03 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-03.txt |
2022-06-23
|
03 | Jorge Rabadan | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan) |
2022-06-23
|
03 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-18
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-03-02
|
02 | Stephane Litkowski | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2022-03-02
|
02 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2021-10-15
|
02 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-02.txt |
2021-10-15
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-15
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jorge Rabadan , Kiran Nagaraj , Wen Lin |
2021-10-15
|
02 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-14
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-04-12
|
01 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-01.txt |
2021-04-12
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-04-12
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jorge Rabadan , Kiran Nagaraj , Wen Lin |
2021-04-12
|
01 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-12
|
00 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-00.txt |
2020-10-12
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2020-10-09
|
00 | Jorge Rabadan | Set submitter to "Jorge Rabadan ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: bess-chairs@ietf.org |
2020-10-09
|
00 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |