(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?
=> The requested RFC type is “Informational” since the document goal is to
describe potential impact of deploying “Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP)” on the Internet and on end-users. In order to achieve their goal,
authors rely on implementation and deployment experiences as well as
theoretical studies (e.g., research papers).
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.
=> The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) aims at improving the
Internet scalability properties leveraging on three simple principles: address
role separation, encapsulation, and mapping. LISP comprises both a tunnel-based
data plane and a distributed control plane for the Internet, and requires some
new functionalities, such as RLOC reachability mechanisms. The main goal of
LISP is to make the Internet more scalable by reducing the number of prefixes
announced in the Default Free Zone (DFZ). However, as LISP relies on mapping
and encapsulation, it turns out that it provides more benefits than just
increased scalability. LISP architecture facilitates routing in environments
where there is little to no correlation between network endpoints and
topological location. In service provider environment this use is evident in a
range of consumer use cases which require an inline anchor in-order to deliver
a service to a subscribers. Inline anchors provide one of three types of
capabilities:
o enable mobility of subscriber end points
o enable chaining of middle-box functions and services
o enable seamless scale-out of functions
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?
=> There was no major controversy. The WG had a debate on the impact of cache
size, i.e., cache performance, control overhead and scalability of control
plane (related to results published in one particular research paper [CCD12]),
which triggered two revisions of the document.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
=> Yes, there are multiple implementations of LISP (at least 3)
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the
specification?
=> At least one major vendor (Cisco) has already implemented LISP specification.
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough
review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the
document had no substantive issues?
=> Review by Ross Callon triggered two revisions of the document but without
major changes. Reviewer was satisfied with version 03 of the document
If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?
=> This document does not require a MIB doctor
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
=> Wassim Haddad is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is
Deborah Brungard
(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 believes that the document is ready for publication as
informational RFC. The document is well written (authors have implemented LISP
and published extensively about it). It is easy to understand and does not
“claim” impact. It has been reviewed by many active contributors to LISP
specifications.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
=> No concern to be mentioned
(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.
=> LISP security issues have been documented in a separate document. “LISP
impact” document touches upon the operational complexity (e.g., resiliency,
troubleshooting/debugging, etc).
(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 nor particular issues to be mentioned
(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?
=> No IPR issues to be highlighted. Authors are not aware of any IPR
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
=> Authors and document Shepherd are not aware of any filed IPR disclosure that
references 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?
=> Document Shepherd believes there is enough consensus behind the document to
justify publication as informational RFC. In fact, the document has been
reviewed and debated by active contributors to LISP specifications which
resulted in few updates.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
=> Document Shepherd is not aware of any such threat or appeal
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.)
=> N/A
(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.
=> Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
http://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (June 10, 2015) is 29 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08
== Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
draft-meyer-lisp-mn-12
Document Shepherd suggests following changes:
- Section 3: s/consitent/consistent
- Section 3: s/depens/depends
- Section 5.1: MOAS = Multi-Origin AS
- Section 5.1: s/deaggregated/disaggregated
- Section 5.2: s/rechability/reachability
- Authors’ Addresses: Alberto Cabellos needs to update his email address!
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
=> The document does not require MIB doctor, media types and URI type reviews
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
=> Yes. There is no issue there
(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?
=> Cited normative references are all already published as IETF 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.
=> There are no downwards normative references
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
=> The document Shepherd is not aware of any change to the status of 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.
(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 is no IANA considerations in the document as no request is made to the
IANA
(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