draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-04
Document Shepherd Write-Up
(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?
Standard track.
This is appropriate as the draft describes a new BGP extended community for EVPN
that contains some flags, which the draft specifies how to use to reduce or
suppress flooding during address resolution. It therefore contains specific
protocol details that must be followed for flooding to be reduced in EVPN.
The intended status is properly indicated.
(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
An EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route can optionally carry an IPv4 or
IPv6 addresses associated with a MAC address. Remote PEs can use this
information to reply locally (act as proxy) to IPv4 ARP requests and
IPv6 Neighbor Solicitation messages and reduce/suppress the flooding
produced by the Address Resolution procedure. The information
conveyed in the MAC/IP route may not be enough for the remote PE to
reply to local ARP or ND requests. For example, if a PE learns an
IPv6->MAC ND entry via EVPN, the PE would not know if that particular
IPv6->MAC pair belongs to a host, a router or a host with an anycast
address, as this information is not carried in the MAC/IP route
advertisements. Similarly, other information relevant to the IP->MAC
ARP/ND entries may be needed. This document proposes an OPTIONAL
extended community that is advertised along with an EVPN MAC/IP
Advertisement route and carries information relevant to the ARP/ND
resolution, so that an EVPN PE implementing a proxy-ARP/ND function
can reply to ARP Requests or Neighbor Solicitations with the correct
information.
Working Group Summary
The document was developed to address the desire to minimise flooding of traffic
associated with address resolution in EVPN. It is particularly important due to the
large size that EVPN networks can grow to, partucularly in terms of the numbers of CEs
and hosts. It makes use of some flags in a new BGP extended community to do this.
There are no IPR declarations on the draft .
Document Quality
I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents
WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a
number of years.
The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need
review.
Personnel
The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com).
The responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com).
(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.
The document shepherd reviewed v03 of the document. I had no significant technical
comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in
version 04.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has
been developed within the WG and reviewed over a
period of a number of IETFs.
(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 further review required.
(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 specific concerns.
(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.
Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that
they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance
with BCP 78 and 79.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There are no IPR declarations on the draft.
(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?
I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants.
There were no objections during last call.
(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.)
None indicated.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
ID-Nits passes.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no relevant formal review criteria.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative or normative.
(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?
No
(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(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).
The document requests the registration of a new EVPN Extended Community:
ARP/ND Extended Community. This is already registered by IANA (type 0x08) from
the EVPN Extended Community registry. However, the name appears to be incorrect in the
registry (it is named just "ND Extended Community"). This needs to be corrected.
The draft also requests that a registry (ARP/ND Extended Community Flags Octet) be
created for the flags contained in the ARP/ND Extended Community. The allocation
procedure requested is standards action.
(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.
There are no IANA registries requiring expert review.
(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.
There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.