(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, as indicated in the page header.
It is appropriate because it specifies standard procedures for
setting up PWs using EVPN based procedures. Implementations must
follow the same procedures to be inter-operable.
(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
The document describes how EVPN can be used to support Virtual
Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. EVPN enables the
following characteristics for VPWS: single-active as well as all-
active multi-homing with flow-based load-balancing, eliminates the
need for traditional way of PW signaling, and provides fast
protection convergence upon node or link failure.
Working Group Summary
This document is a BESS Working Group document, and has gone through
WG adoption, WG LC processes.
Document Quality
Revisions -4~-07 addressed a few issues raised by the
document shepherd. The shepherd agrees with co-authors that
it is now solid, mature and ready for publication.
Juniper supports VPWS all-active and single-active redundancy modes
with sub-second recovery on egress link failure.
Cisco has implemented EVPN-VPWS based on this document and it has
been available since H2/2015.
Nokia also has a full implementation,
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Zhang (zzhang@juniper.net)
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana (aretana@cisco.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.
Revisions -4~-07 addressed a few issues raised by the
document shepherd. The shepherd agrees with co-authors that
it is now solid, mature and ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
(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.
(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.
BESS co-chair Martin confirms that all co-authors have stated "unaware of
undisclosured IPR":
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/sjtCEy5F34eqWjmoH5bWLwwJieI
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
Two IPR discussions from Juniper & Cisco respectively:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws
Haven't seen WG discussion on that.
(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?
draft-boutros-l2vpn-evpn-vpws-00 was published on 6/30/2012. Over the
course of four years public discussions have been mostly among the co-authors
and Jim Uttaro, Wim Henderickx and Jeffrey Zhang. This is not unusual
for BESS documents. The document is solid and mature.
(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.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Thorough idnits check did not show problem.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(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.
No.
(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 draft has a reference for an already allocated code-point in FCFS
range of the EVPN Extended Community Sub-Types:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml#evpn
Therefore this documents only asks IANA to update the reference so that
it be this RFC if and when published.
Note that currently the referred to entry is "0x04 Layer 2 Extended Community"
but it should be corrected to "EVPN Layer 2 attributes" in the registry (not
the draft/rfc).
(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.
N/A.
(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.
N/A.