Draft Title: Extensions to VPLS PE model for Provider Backbone Bridging
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05
(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?
Informational.
This is the proper type of RFC as this is a document describing various
different interoperability scenarios where Provider Backbone Bridging is used
in H-VPLS.
(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 document describes different interoperability scenarios where
Provider Backbone Bridge functionality is used in H-VPLS to attain better
scalability. It also describes the scenarios and the mechanisms for
incorporating Provider Backbone Bridge functionality within H-VPLS with
existing Ethernet access and interoperability among them. Also it
discusses the migration mechanisms and scenarios by which Provider
Backbone Bridge functionality can be incorporated into H-VPLS with
existing MPLS access.
Working Group Summary:
This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been well
reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft
(and it's predecessor draft). It has been essentially stable since WG
adoption in January 2010.
Document Quality:
The document is well structured and provides an exhaustive set of
interoperability scenarios. Each scenario has an ASCII-art diagram and a
full explanation of how the scenario operates.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.com)
Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@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.
The Document Shepherd did a full review of the text of version 02 of the draft,
leading to the authors issuing version 03 with various fixes - which was
subsequently reviewed by the Document Shepherd. The Document Shepherd did a
scan through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review
debates on the draft. The document shepherd then asked the authors to issue
version 04 to incorporate issues found in the review of version 03. A version
05 was subsequently issued to fix ID-nits.
(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 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?
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes.
Cisco made a statement about IPR claimed in a predecessor draft
(draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-pbb-interop-03) on July 23rd 2008. This was notified
to the mailing list on July 9th 2013.
Nortel networks made statements about IPR claimed in the draft on Jan 12th 2011
and Feb 25th 2011. These were notified to the L2VPN mailing list on Jan 13th
2010 and Feb 28th 2011 respectively but there was no discussion of these IPR
claims on the list. At the last IETF, and more recently on the mailing list,
the WG chairs have notified the WG that there the current ownership of the
claimed IPR is unknown and have asked for feedback as to whether to publish the
draft as an informational RFC. Given the lack of feedback from the WG the
chairs suggest that we go ahead and publish the draft as an RFC.
(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?
When the WG meeting at IETF74 was asked for consensus on the draft about 6
people were in favour (the same number as had read the draft). 5 people
(including 3 non-authors) indicated support for the draft on the mailing list
poll and none objected.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
None found.
(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. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review.
(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 - all normative references are to RFCs.
(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 - all normative references are upward.
(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 - no impact on status of 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 IANA considerations section simply states that IANA does not need to take
any action for this draft. There are no new code points or registries defined
in this document.
(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.
None.
(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.
No sections written in a formal language.