Skip to main content

Seamless Integration of Ethernet VPN (EVPN) with Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) and Their Provider Backbone Bridge (PBB) Equivalents
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-05-06
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2019-03-25
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2019-03-07
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2019-02-01
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2019-02-01
07 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-07.txt
2019-02-01
07 (System) New version approved
2019-02-01
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Samer Salam , Ali Sajassi , Nick Regno
2019-02-01
07 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision
2019-02-01
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2019-02-01
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2019-02-01
06 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2019-02-01
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2019-02-01
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2019-02-01
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2019-02-01
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-02-01
06 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-02-01
06 Martin Vigoureux Ballot approval text was generated
2019-01-30
06 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS.
2019-01-30
06 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2019-01-22
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-01-22
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2019-01-22
06 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-06.txt
2019-01-22
06 (System) New version approved
2019-01-22
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Samer Salam , Ali Sajassi , Nick Regno
2019-01-22
06 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision
2019-01-10
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2019-01-10
05 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2019-01-09
05 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2019-01-09
05 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
* Section 3.3 MAC Mobility

The handling of MAC mobility between the EVPN and VPLS PEs seems a bit, for a lack of …
[Ballot comment]
* Section 3.3 MAC Mobility

The handling of MAC mobility between the EVPN and VPLS PEs seems a bit, for a lack of a better term, "not seamless" to me. While only using EVPN a MAC that has moved will get propagated out without *initiating* any sort of BUM traffic itself as described Section 15 of RFC7432. If I understand this document correctly, if a MAC moves onto a segment with a VPLS PE, traffic towards it will be blackholed until it initiates BUM traffic which is not the case when the MAC moves between EVPN PEs. Did I get this right? If so, I think this limitation needs to be highlighted a bit more prominently.
2019-01-09
05 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2019-01-09
05 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
I'm staying out of the "what track should it be" discussion...

Thanks to Linda Dunbar for the OpsDir review.
2019-01-09
05 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2019-01-09
05 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work on this.

I support Alissa's discuss.

§2:
- The 2119/8174 keywords in this section are not used according to …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work on this.

I support Alissa's discuss.

§2:
- The 2119/8174 keywords in this section are not used according to the RFC 2119/RFC 8174 definitions. The RFCs talk about requirements on implementations to achieve interoperability. This speaks of requirements for the standards process. If the working group prefers to keep the use of keywords in this section, please add some additional text to the 2119/8174 boilerplate to explain the usage. (My other comments on the section assume that the normative keywords will remain.)

- Req 2:  "The solution MUST require no changes..."
I suggest "MUST NOT require changes"

- Req 5: This doesn't seem to state a solution requirement; rather, it describes an action that VPN instances may take. Is the solution requirement to allow this behavior?
2019-01-09
05 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2019-01-09
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2019-01-09
05 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the current status as PS. While it does not define new
codepoints or protocol extensions, it defines new mechanisms
which …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the current status as PS. While it does not define new
codepoints or protocol extensions, it defines new mechanisms
which need to be supported by all (PBB-)EVPN nodes. The mechanisms
are not supported by operational configuration, they are new
mechanisms which need to be supported by the node itself.

A BCP/Informational status would be appropriate if this document
was only defining the procedures related to the VPLS or PBB-VPLS
PEs. For those nodes, there is no change, as all the new mechanisms
supporting seamless integration need to be supported on the EVPN nodes.
2019-01-09
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard
2019-01-09
05 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the current status as PS. While it does not define new codepoints or
protocol extensions, it defines new mechanisms which …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the current status as PS. While it does not define new codepoints or
protocol extensions, it defines new mechanisms which need to be supported by
all (PBB-)EVPN nodes. The mechanisms are not supported by operational
configuration, they are new mechanisms which need to be supported by the
node itself.

A BCP/Informational status would be appropriate if this document was only
defining the procedures related to the VPLS or PBB-VPLS PEs. For those nodes,
there is no change, as all the new mechanisms supporting seamless integration
need to be supported on the EVPN nodes.
2019-01-09
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard
2019-01-09
05 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the current status as PS. While it does not define new codepoints or protocol extensions, it defines new mechanisms which …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the current status as PS. While it does not define new codepoints or protocol extensions, it defines new mechanisms which need to be supported by all (PBB-)EVPN nodes. The mechanisms are not supported by operational configuration, they are new mechanisms which need to be supported by the node itself.

A BCP/Informational status would be appropriate if this document was only defining the procedures related to the VPLS or PBB-VPLS PEs. For those nodes, there is no change, as all the new mechanisms supporting seamless integration need to be supported on the EVPN nodes.
2019-01-09
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2019-01-09
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2019-01-09
05 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot discuss]
I agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that based on its content and the definitions provided in RFC 2026, this document should be …
[Ballot discuss]
I agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that based on its content and the definitions provided in RFC 2026, this document should be a BCP, not a Proposed Standard. I don't think the rationale provided to the OpsDir reviewer justifies it being a Proposed Standard.
2019-01-09
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
Please fix the nits identified by the Gen-ART reviewer.
2019-01-09
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2019-01-07
05 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
It would be very nice to have references to (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS in the introduction.  I think that all of these references should …
[Ballot comment]
It would be very nice to have references to (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS in the introduction.  I think that all of these references should be Normative because they are "documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology".  It looks like the references are made later in the text...but a couple are listed as only Informative.

I don't think that the use of rfc2119 language in §2 (Requirements) is appropriate because (1) there isn't any Normative action from the requirements, and (2) these are resolved later in this document.

I agree with others (Genart, Opsdir) in that this document reads more like a BCP or even an Informational document.

[nit] s/(PBB-VPLS) solutions (PBB-)VPLS./(PBB-VPLS) solutions.
2019-01-07
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2019-01-07
05 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Please be consistent about (non-)hyphenation of "VPLS A-D".

Is "MP2P" really an intended acronym (vs., e.g., P2MP)?  It does not appear
in https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt …
[Ballot comment]
Please be consistent about (non-)hyphenation of "VPLS A-D".

Is "MP2P" really an intended acronym (vs., e.g., P2MP)?  It does not appear
in https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt and is not
defined, even though P2MP is, and MP2P is used some 8 times in the
document.

We probably need a definition and/or reference for "split-horizon".

Section 2

  6. The support of All-Active redundancy mode across both (PBB-)EVPN
  PEs and (PBB-)VPLS PEs is outside the scope of this document.

The claim (not quoted) of "seamless" integration seems to only hold if
All-Active redundancy mode is not in common use.  Is it?

Section 3.1

                                                          In this case,
  when a VPLS PE receives the EVPN IMET route, it MUST ignore it on the
  basis that it belongs to an unknown SAFI. [...]

Is this "MUST" a new requirement imposed by this document, or a restatement
of an existing requirement from elsewhere?

Section 3.2

Please expand FEC on first usage (or define it in the terminology section).

When we talk about "learned" C-MAC addresses from traffic on VPLS PWs and
injecting those MAC addresses into bridge tables, RIB/FIB tables, and
MAC-VRFs, are these learned C-MAC addresses coming from provider-owned
equipment or customer equipment?  Giving the customer the ability to inject
MAC addresses without verification would probably merit a closer look
(though I do note that the penultimate paragraph discusses the
non-propagation of the learned addresses over the control plane).

Section 3.4.2, 4.4.2

My understanding was that P2MP (PBB-)EVPN tunnels are a well-understood thing, in
which case I would expect to see something more like "this document does
not modify the operation of multicast P2MP EVPN tunnels" than "outside the
scope of this document".

Section 5

Does the extra state that (PBB-)EVPN PEs need to maintain (i.e., both the
normal EVPN state and PWs to the VPLS PEs) pose any risk of DoS due to
resource exhaustion?
2019-01-07
05 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-01-07
05 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
To me this documents reads more like an informational doc, providing guidance for operations but not specifying any new protocol or protocol extensions …
[Ballot comment]
To me this documents reads more like an informational doc, providing guidance for operations but not specifying any new protocol or protocol extensions or requirements that are mandatory to implement for interoperability.
2019-01-07
05 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-12-21
05 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-01-10
2018-12-21
05 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2018-12-21
05 Martin Vigoureux Ballot has been issued
2018-12-21
05 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2018-12-21
05 Martin Vigoureux Created "Approve" ballot
2018-12-21
05 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was changed
2018-12-21
05 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was changed
2018-12-19
05 Pete Resnick Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Pete Resnick. Sent review to list.
2018-12-18
05 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2018-12-18
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2018-12-17
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2018-12-17
05 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2018-12-13
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent
2018-12-13
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent
2018-12-13
05 Stephen Kent Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Stephen Kent.
2018-12-11
05 Dan Harkins Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Dan Harkins was rejected
2018-12-11
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2018-12-11
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2018-12-07
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2018-12-07
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2018-12-06
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick
2018-12-06
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick
2018-12-04
05 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-12-04
05 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-18):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, Matthew Bocci , matthew.bocci@nokia.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-18):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, Matthew Bocci , matthew.bocci@nokia.com, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  ((PBB-)EVPN Seamless Integration with (PBB-)VPLS) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to
consider the following document: - '(PBB-)EVPN Seamless Integration with
(PBB-)VPLS'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-12-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This draft specifies procedures for backward compatibility of
  Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone Bridge Ethernet VPN (PBB-
  EVPN) solutions with Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) and Provider
  Backbone Bridge VPLS (PBB-VPLS) solutions (PBB-)VPLS. It also
  provides mechanisms for seamless integration of these two
  technologies in the same MPLS/IP network on a per-VPN-instance basis.
  Implementation of this draft enables service providers to introduce
  (PBB-)EVPN PEs in their brown-field deployments of (PBB-)VPLS
  networks.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2472/





2018-12-04
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-12-04
05 Martin Vigoureux Last call was requested
2018-12-04
05 Martin Vigoureux Ballot approval text was generated
2018-12-04
05 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was generated
2018-12-04
05 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-12-04
05 Martin Vigoureux Last call announcement was generated
2018-12-04
05 Martin Vigoureux Last call announcement was generated
2018-11-27
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-11-27
05 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05.txt
2018-11-27
05 (System) New version approved
2018-11-27
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Samer Salam , Ali Sajassi , Nick Regno
2018-11-27
05 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision
2018-08-19
04 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2018-06-19
04 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2018-05-28
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu.
2018-05-07
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu
2018-05-07
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu
2018-05-07
04 Martin Vigoureux Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-04.txt

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 …
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-04.txt

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?

  Standards Track.
 
  This is appropriate as the draft describes a set of specific procedures and protocol
  that must be followed in order to achieve "seamless" integration between EVPN and VPLS.

  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

  This draft specifies procedures for backward compatibility of the
  (PBB-)EVPN solution with (PBB-)VPLS and provides mechanisms for
  seamless integration of the two technologies in the same MPLS/IP
  network on a per-VPN-instance basis. Implementation of this draft
  enables service providers to introduce (PBB-)EVPN PEs in their brown-
  field deployments of (PBB-)VPLS networks.

Working Group Summary

  The document was developed to provide mechanisms to enable EVPN and traditional
  VPLS to work together in the same network in as seamless a way as practicable. This is
  important for service providers migrating from old VPLS deployments to new technologies
  such as EVPN.

  There is one IPR declaration 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  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
  v04.

(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 is one IPR declaration on the draft submitted in 2014. There was no discussion
  of this at the time of WG last call, although the declaration was made several years ago.


 
(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.
 
   

(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).

  There are no IANA actions.

(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.
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2018-04-26
04 Matthew Bocci Changed document writeup
2018-04-25
04 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-04.txt
2018-04-25
04 (System) New version approved
2018-04-25
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Samer Salam , Ali Sajassi , Nick Regno
2018-04-25
04 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision
2018-04-18
03 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-03.txt
2018-04-18
03 (System) New version approved
2018-04-18
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Samer Salam , Ali Sajassi , Nick Regno
2018-04-18
03 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision
2018-03-28
02 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-02.txt
2018-03-28
02 (System) New version approved
2018-03-28
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Samer Salam , Ali Sajassi , Nick Regno
2018-03-28
02 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision
2018-03-17
01 Stephane Litkowski Added to session: IETF-101: bess  Tue-1550
2018-02-15
01 Matthew Bocci Notification list changed to Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
2018-02-15
01 Matthew Bocci Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci
2018-02-14
01 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt
2018-02-14
01 (System) New version approved
2018-02-14
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Samer Salam , bess-chairs@ietf.org, Ali Sajassi , Nick Regno
2018-02-14
01 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision
2015-10-14
00 (System) Notify list changed from "Martin Vigoureux"  to (None)
2015-02-21
00 Martin Vigoureux Notification list changed to "Martin Vigoureux" <martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>
2015-02-21
00 Martin Vigoureux Document shepherd changed to Martin Vigoureux
2015-02-21
00 Martin Vigoureux This document now replaces draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ instead of None
2015-02-21
00 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-00.txt