Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub

(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 is requested in the document header, and is the proper type of
RFC since the document defines specific behavior that must be implemented by
routers in a consistent manner to achieve the goal.

(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:

With BGP/MPLS VPNs any-to-any connectivity among sites of a given Virtual
Private Network would require each Provider Edge router that has one or more of
these sites connected to it to hold all the routes of that Virtual Private
Network. The approach described in this document allows to reduce the number of
Provider Edge routers that have to maintain all these routes by requiring only
a subset of these routers to maintain all these routes. Furthermore, when
Provider Edge routers use ingress replication to carry multicast traffic of VPN
customers, the approach described in this document may under certain
circumstances allow to reduce bandwidth inefficiency associated with ingress
replication, and to redistribute the replication load among Provider Edge
routers.

- Working Group Summary:

Nothing particular (no objection from working group contributors during
adoption, not real objection during WGLC, except for one comment challenging
the scope of the document but without a follow-up from the commenter).

- Document Quality:

There are no concerns about the document quality.  An extensive review was done
on WGLC by Eric Rosen (co-author of BGP/MPLS specifications to which these
specifications relate), which were resolved after substantive changes to the
document. No information has been provided related to current implementations
or plans for implementations.

- Personnel:

Document Shepherd is Thomas Morin as l3vpn WG co-chair, and Responsible Area
Director is Stewart Bryant.

(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 complete review of the document, both editorial and
technical concluding that the document quality is very good from and that the
document is ready for publication.  A few points probably deserving editorial
clarifications were noted, which can be addressed during next steps in the
publication process.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(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.

None of the above applies, AFAICT.

(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.

There was one comment by Robert Raszuk during WGLC claiming that these
specifications should be extended "to accomodate even further scaling
enhancements not just for SP PEs but also for actual customer VPN sites.".
However, the commenter did not advertise an intent to actually contribute such
an extension, and either way the publication of the document as-is would not
prevent such a proposal to be pursued later.

(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, all authors have confirmed so.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosure was filed relating to this document.

(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?

Beyond co-authors, a significant number of people expressed interest on the
proposal, including both vendors and operators.

(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.

Some issues found with idnits 2.12.15 :
- use of RFC1918 addresses: as examples in this document, they seem legitimate
since networks represented are Virtual Private Networks - the copyright year in
the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year =>
fix needed - idnits thinks that "'he document date (May 2012) is 310 days in
the past", but this is a parsing error, the document date (Dec 12 2012) is less
than 4 month ago. - idnits finds two missing references: 'RFC2119' on line 112,
and 'IANA-SAFI' on line 642 (of -04 version of the draft) => fix needed

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(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, all normative references are already published as 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 of this document are PROPOSED STANDARD or BCP RFCs.

(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).

N/A (This document introduces no new IANA Considerations)

(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 (this document introduces no new IANA Considerations)

(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
Back