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?
This is appropriate as the draft describes a set of protocol extensions, including
new code points and ways to use existing TLVs, to optimize ingress replication for BUM traffic 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:
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) networks using EVPN as control
plane may use Ingress Replication (IR) or PIM (Protocol Independent
Multicast) based trees to convey the overlay BUM traffic. PIM
provides an efficient solution to avoid sending multiple copies of
the same packet over the same physical link, however it may not
always be deployed in the NVO core network. IR avoids the dependency
on PIM in the NVO network core. While IR provides a simple multicast
transport, some NVO networks with demanding multicast applications
require a more efficient solution without PIM in the core. This
document describes a solution to optimize the efficiency of IR in NVO
Working Group Summary
The document was developed to address the desire to provide efficient replication.
It is important because it avoids the need to deploy PIM in the core of the network
only for this application, which is particularly a consideration where EVPN is deployed
to implement Network Virtualization Overlays in data centers. It makes use of
a new BGP PMSI Tunnel Type to do this.
There are no IPR declarations on the draft .
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
The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (email@example.com).
The responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux (firstname.lastname@example.org).
(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 document shepherd reviewed v04 of the document. I had no significant technical
comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in
version 05 and 06.
(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
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
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
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. It received a
number of comments and significant discussion in WG last call that
were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and
comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward.
Prior to the WG last call, a call for interest was conducted which also demonstrated
consensus in the value of progressing the draft.
(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.)
(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
(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?
(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.
(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 new code points from the PMSI Tunnel Types registry and the
PMSI Attributes registry. The were already allocated by IANA as early allocations
and appear correctly in the published registries.
(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 actions.
(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.